Anti-LTN Tory accused of hypocrisy over support for al fresco dining scheme; TikTok star in hot water for riding with pet dog strapped on his back; Polite bike thief told where to go; Jeremy Vine vs cabby; TTs back on next month + more on the live blog

74 thoughts on “Anti-LTN Tory accused of hypocrisy over support for al fresco dining scheme; TikTok star in hot water for riding with pet dog strapped on his back; Polite bike thief told where to go; Jeremy Vine vs cabby; TTs back on next month + more on the live blog”

1. Re:Vine/Taxi

   Re:Vine/Taxi

   I can’t even bear to look at twitter for fear of the ignorant comments

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Captain Badger wrote:

     Re:Vine/Taxi

     I can’t even bear to look at twitter for fear of the ignorant comments

     — Captain Badger

     Twitter exists to amplify stupid, ignorant, racist people, in an echo chamber in my experience. It would be better for all society if it was shut down. The internet would become less toxic overnight.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Most of the comments are

       Most of the comments are actually surprisingly moderate. There’s also the interesting fact that for the taxi they’d just driven past a sign explicitly saying ‘give way to oncoming cycles’ https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1364290038809378820/photo/1 

       In my opinion Jeremy could have ridden more cautiously, but the driver was the one in error, especially since it seems that they made absolutely no attempt to check that the junction was clear before rolling into it. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. The taxi driver was doing the

   The taxi driver was doing the old ‘follow the car in front’ trick to avoid having to check that his way was clear and as he was turning right, he should have been looking out for other traffic. Just because a junction is confusing doesn’t mean you just go through it without any caution or awareness of other traffic, if anything you should slow down and take extra care.

   Log In or Register to post comments

3. I want to know what that sign

   I want to know what that sign on the road the taxi driver came from says, as Id bet it just says the road ahead is closed,not closed to all but cyclists, so pay closer attention to any oncoming cyclists and be prepared to give way, I know lot of words to put on a sign, but “Road Ahead Closed” does often lead you to conclude there wont be anything coming towards you, and the give way sign Vine highlights I dont think is a valid instructional sign anyway, wheres the taxi driver supposed to stop to give way, in the box junction ? at the line for the junction ? in the no-mans land between both ?

   it seems a mess of a junction at the best of times, and I dont think Id ride it at the moment assuming cars would expect me to be there and give way to me. Id certainly have been more prepared to stop in that case than Vine. Be better if they temporarily phased the lights so only one direction could move at a time.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Given that the road appears

     As to where the driver should have waited, how is it any different to any other junction where right-turning vehicles have to wait for oncoming traffic? Indeed, that is the one situation where you are explicitly allowed to wait in a box junction (provided the exit is clear once there is no oncoming traffic). If the exit isn’t clear, then wait behind the traffic lights.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • well its different in this

       well its different in this case, because normally on a junction like this you dont conflict with the turning traffic, youd have a clear path straight through unimpeded on the left. But here you are coming in from the right at an angle to ride across the front of them and their turning circle to rejoin the cycle lane.

       and that alters the point where the taxi or any vehicle needs to stop, and where the driver needs to decide to stop,which then becomes a well who got here first debate, who crossed which line first.

       all of which can be avoided yes if the taxi had stopped, but this is central London people dont drive or behave like that on those roads, or if you as the rider go Im going to assume no-ones going to give way how this is currently setup and just ride accordingly to the hazards as they are presented in front of me

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • The Taxierist should have at

     The Taxierist should have at least been looking around, staring at the arse of the vehicle in front.

     Drives for a living…

     And Jeremy seemed to have enough ability not to get run over, didn’t see any reaction to the professional motorist, let alone use of the taxi’s inadequate brakes.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Awavey wrote:

     …. wheres the taxi driver supposed to stop to give way, in the box junction ? at the line for the junction ? in the no-mans land between both ?

     ….

     — Awavey

     “I knew you had priority, and I saw you, but I didn’t know where to wait so I thought it’d be best to run you over….”

     You can wait behind the line

     HWC176
     You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.

     You can wait in a box junction when turning right…

     HWC174
     Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (download ‘Road markings’). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.

     This is basic bloody stuff. There is no justification for the drivers actions. It was at best carelessness and inattention. At worst, “f*cking cyclists, shouldn’t be on the road. I’ll show ‘im!”

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • The sign is unequivocal:

     The sign is unequivocal: ‘Give way to oncoming cyclists’.(Or do you mean the square A-frame sign that we can only see the back of?)

     It should be obvious to anyone approaching a crossroads and turning right that they should give way to oncoming traffic. The sign makes it absolutely clear.(Check the photo on Jeremy’s twitter). Making a guess that the cycle lane is closed, or deciding that because the straight ahead lane is closed (as appears from the coned off approach lane) there will be no oncoming traffic, and blundering on regardless is not the best course of action.

     Agreed it looks a mess.

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • the A frame sign, this other

       the A frame sign, this other “give way” sign isnt part of these roadworks if its visible on streetmap, and so its not there to cater for these current specific circumstances, its there as a half hearted attempt to fit a contra flow cycle lane into a road & not make it a proper junction,with proper priorities and markings, because the only things the dominant flow of traffic have to give way to is cyclists, and so they stuff this rectangular sign up, which I dont believe is designed to be used for this particular use, and hope it covers their risk assessment.

       should the taxi driver have given way, probably should have, am I surprised they didnt, not really, would i be bothered if in that situation that happened to me, actually no I wouldnt, so I file it in the category of interesting to debate over an espresso, but if thats the worst Ive got to contend with on a commute, so be it.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I’d guess that the A frame

         I’d guess that the A frame sign says ‘road ahead closed’, as you surmised. It presumably means if you’re travelling down Gordon Square to Tavistock Square Gdns, then the junction is temporarily right turn only. It wouldn’t mean ‘…and nothings coming the other way.’

         ‘should the taxi driver have given way,’ (?) Definitely.

         He’s turning right across the path of oncoming traffic. The ‘give way to cyclists’ sign shouldn’t be needed in that situation, (It’s probably there as belt’n’braces because of previous near misses or collisions.) but since it is there, there’s really no excuse for the taxi driver (armed with ‘the knowledge’ and being a professional driver  who probably knows that junction like the back of his hand,) to be pulling a move like that.

         I’m not sure what markings are missing. There’s a stop line at every set of lights, and a yellow box. I suppose it could do with a pair of dashed lines to delineate the cyle path across the junction, with ‘bike’ markings to impress upon right turning traffic that there’s a bike lane. 

         Your last suggestion about phasing the lights …Yes, but permanently, not just for the temporary road works. (Looking at street view again, there appears to be a right turn filter arrow on the lights at the corner of the hotel, I can’t imagine that would have been lit at the same time as Jeremy’s green light.)

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

4. RE guy with dog:

   RE guy with dog:

   Dog looks pretty happy if you ask me. Yes there is a risk of an accident but there always is, and it’s tiny. People take their dogs in cars all the time – they could crash too. People also take their dogs for walks, often off-lead – that strikes me as when dogs are most likely to be injured, and yet people are very rarely up in arms about it (admittedly there have been a handful of stories on here recently highlighting the risks to both the dogs themselves as well as other people and wildlife resulting from improperly controlled dogs).

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. That GoldenDoodle does look

   That GoldenDoodle does look pretty comfy riding in the backpack.

   Can’t see how they see that as dangerous. I notice some of the naysayers seem to be saying that riding a bike is dangerous and you’ll die if you don’t wear a helmet… Nutjobs, clearly just against cycling.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • ChrisB200SX wrote:

     That GoldenDoodle does look pretty comfy riding in the backpack.

     Can’t see how they see that as dangerous. I notice some of the naysayers seem to be saying that riding a bike is dangerous and you’ll die if you don’t wear a helmet… Nutjobs, clearly just against cycling.

     — ChrisB200SX

     Same sort of people who call out child abuse for people riding with their children on the roads. Seem to have the view that cyclist is a high risk activity, possibly because they themselves are incapable of driving safely around vulnerable road users.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • There are multiple videos of

     There are multiple videos of the dog riding with its head out the sunroof or window of the car on the timelines. It seems to be happy there as well. I don’t have a Gram account to check the comments to see if the same animal abuse claims are made then or not. 

     Then you have the skateboarding and surfing dogs normally shown as feel good news items at the end of the news programmes. Do people make similar comments then?

     Log In or Register to post comments

6. I put a video of the National

   I put a video of the National HC on youtube and discovered from the comments that there is an infinite supply of helmet nazis out there. Worldwide! So many know-nothings who have a fit at the sight of someone bare headed on a bike.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Miller wrote:

     I put a video of the National HC on youtube and discovered from the comments that there is an infinite supply of helmet nazis out there. Worldwide! So many know-nothings who have a fit at the sight of someone bare headed on a bike.

     — Miller

     It’s a religious thing; they believe, so everyone else should, and just like other religions, they ignore awkward things like facts.  Cycle helmets are an incredibly good illustration of the gullibility of the average human and the sheer impossibility of changing someone’s mind with facts.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • eburtthebike wrote:

       — eburtthebike

       It’s a religious thing; they believe, so everyone else should

       [/quote]

       Given your fanatical devotion, both on this site and others, Burt, to arguing aganst helmets, I can’t see much difference between them and you, you’re two sides of the same coin.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rendel Harris wrote:

         It’s a religious thing; they believe, so everyone else should

         — Rendel Harris

         Given your fanatical devotion, both on this site and others, Burt, to arguing aganst helmets, I can’t see much difference between them and you, you’re two sides of the same coin.

         — eburtthebike

         Surely he’s a helmet-atheist – he doesn’t believe that helmets are a major safety factor for cyclists.

         Fanatical devotion would be wearing a cycling helmet in the shower to protect against slipping.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           Surely he’s a helmet-atheist – he doesn’t believe that helmets are a major safety factor for cyclists.

           — hawkinspeter

           In that case surely one would just say I don’t think they’re any use but wear one if you want to, dear old Burt frequently rants at people and calls them stupid and gullible for wearing helmets. Not wearing a helmet appears to be just as much of a religion to him as wearing one is, he alleges, to others.

           Can we not just say wear one if you want and don’t if you don’t? They’re never going to be made mandatory in this country, it’s really not worth everyone getting so extra about it.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           Surely he’s a helmet-atheist – he doesn’t believe that helmets are a major safety factor for cyclists.

           — Rendel Harris

           In that case surely one would just say I don’t think they’re any use but wear one if you want to, dear old Burt frequently rants at people and calls them stupid and gullible for wearing helmets. Not wearing a helmet appears to be just as much of a religion to him as wearing one is, he alleges, to others.

           Can we not just say wear one if you want and don’t if you don’t? They’re never going to be made mandatory in this country, it’s really not worth everyone getting so extra about it.

           — hawkinspeter

           You can get militant atheists that decry theists, so maybe Burt is just a militant helmet-atheist.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           In that case surely one would just say I don’t think they’re any use but wear one if you want to, dear old Burt frequently rants at people and calls them stupid and gullible for wearing helmets. Not wearing a helmet appears to be just as much of a religion to him as wearing one is, he alleges, to others.

           Can we not just say wear one if you want and don’t if you don’t? They’re never going to be made mandatory in this country, it’s really not worth everyone getting so extra about it.

           — Rendel Harris

           There have been several attempts to make helmets compulsory in this country, and this has only been prevented by pointing out that the people demanding it were stupid and gullible.  Given the seemingly increasing number of people who believe them to be effective, despite the evidence, and the pressure from those who put us at risk to make us wear them so that they feel better, it is likely that there will be others.

           Anyone who believes things without checking the facts is stupid and gullible in my opinion.

         • eburtthebike wrote:

           Anyone who believes things without checking the facts is stupid and gullible in my opinion.

           — eburtthebike

           That’s a bit simplistic. I believe a whole lot of different things without having researched the facts (e.g. door mirrors working better than wing mirrors).

           I think it’s more down to whether something seems reasonable or not based on experience. It’s reasonable to state that a cycling helmet provides some head protection at slow speeds, but less reasonable to think that it’ll protect against being run over by a lorry.

           Stupidity is more when someone presents an alternate view and you don’t re-evaluate what you believe in light of the new evidence.

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           Anyone who believes things without checking the facts is stupid and gullible in my opinion.

           — hawkinspeter

           That’s a bit simplistic. I believe a whole lot of different things without having researched the facts (e.g. door mirrors working better than wing mirrors).

           — eburtthebikeThere was some research done a very long time ago which showed that door mirrors were more dangerous than wing mirrors because it took drivers significantly longer to shift their focus to look into them.  Just don’t ask me to dig it up!

         • eburtthebike wrote:

           Anyone who believes things without checking the facts is stupid and gullible in my opinion.

           — eburtthebike

           That’s a bit simplistic. I believe a whole lot of different things without having researched the facts (e.g. door mirrors working better than wing mirrors).

           — hawkinspeter

           There was some research done a very long time ago which showed that door mirrors were more dangerous than wing mirrors because it took drivers significantly longer to shift their focus to look into them.  Just don’t ask me to dig it up!

           — eburtthebike

           Well there’s the problem right there. If they are shifting focus [b]to[/b] the mirror, then they are not focused on the image reflected in the mirror, which is at a considerably more distant image plane. Someone needs to tell these drivers they’re doing it wrong – they need to look [i]through [/i] the glass, not at it. Maybe the same kind of thing is happening with the windscreen? Would explain plenty!

       • Rendel Harris wrote:

         — Rendel Harris

         It’s a religious thing; they believe, so everyone else should

         — eburtthebike

         Given your fanatical devotion, both on this site and others, Burt, to arguing aganst helmets, I can’t see much difference between them and you, you’re two sides of the same coin.

         [/quote]I’ve never argued against helmets, only the overwhelming promotion of them as “the answer” to drivers knocking us off, and the gullibility of the people who believe bad science and endlessly repeated “helmet saved my life” stories, which are clearly not true.  The worst thing about helmet promotion and propaganda is that it diverts attention from what really works and sows dissent in the people who should be working together to make cycling mainstream.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Miller wrote:

     I put a video of the National HC on youtube and discovered from the comments that there is an infinite supply of helmet nazis out there. Worldwide! So many know-nothings who have a fit at the sight of someone bare headed on a bike.

     — Miller

     Calling people Nazis because they advocate the use of helmets, whatever you believe about the ins and outs of the arguments, is distasteful and frankly pathetic.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Agreed. I thought ‘Nazis’

       Agreed. I thought ‘Nazis’ were people who wished to elimate personal freedom and were responsible for the mass murder of Jews, Slavs, communists, disabled people, Roma, gay people, and many others.

       Not people who choose to wear an odd looking hat. But I could be wrong.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Rendel Harris wrote:

       Calling people Nazis because they advocate the use of helmets, whatever you believe about the ins and outs of the arguments, is distasteful and frankly pathetic.

       — Rendel Harris

       It isn’t that they advocate helmets, it is their intolerance of any differing views, despite those views being supported by the facts.

       Maybe Mencken said it best:

       “The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • eburtthebike wrote:

         Calling people Nazis because they advocate the use of helmets, whatever you believe about the ins and outs of the arguments, is distasteful and frankly pathetic.

         — eburtthebike

         It isn’t that they advocate helmets, it is their intolerance of any differing views, despite those views being supported by the facts.

         Maybe Mencken said it best:

         “The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”

         — Rendel Harris

         Firstly, if people are intolerant of differing views that is undesirable but it does not make it acceptable to call them Nazis, it’s both grossly insulting to them and downplays the horror of the Nazi regime.

         Secondly, don’t be ridiculous, you and those who think like you all hold the TRUTH and anyone who disagrees is only doing so because they instinctively dislike it? We’re not talking socialism vs capitalism here old fruit, get a sense of perspective. I don’t particularly like wearing a helmet, they clutter up the house, they’re a pain to carry around and I look ridiculous in them, but the balance of the evidence and the experience of forty-odd years of keen cycling suggests to me that they’re a worthwhile protection. Not because I know that you hold the TRUTH but for some unexplained mad reason I want to suppress it, I’d far sooner agree with you and not wear a helmet, but I don’t so I do.

         Log In or Register to post comments

7. I interpret a ‘helmet nazi’
   I interpret a ‘helmet nazi’ as someone deploying verbal or physical violence against a cyclist not wearing a helmet. I don’t think writing forcefully in favour of helmets qualifies. Fortunately, another cyclist not wearing a helmet doesn’t affect me, although I find the omission barmy. Wearing them entails no detriment to anyone but those worried about their hair, and a helmet could be highly beneficial.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • wtjs wrote:

     I interpret a ‘helmet nazi’ as someone deploying verbal or physical violence against a cyclist not wearing a helmet. I don’t think writing forcefully in favour of helmets qualifies. Fortunately, another cyclist not wearing a helmet doesn’t affect me, although I find the omission barmy. Wearing them entails no detriment to anyone but those worried about their hair, and a helmet could be highly beneficial.

     — wtjs

     Is it equally barmy for pedestrians crossing the road, people using stairs, ladders? getting out of the bath?

     Risk of falling off a bike is low, consequences for a fall are also normally quite low. Helmet does not protect against collision with vehicle or highspeed collision with street furniture, only the fall.

     Probably come off my bike 4 or 5 times in 30 years. Approximately half with and half without. Reckon helmet may have saved me from concussion and grazed ear once, no head injuries when not using.

     More people present to A&E with head injuries as car occupants, no one is calling for driving helmets.

     I wear a helmet when riding with others due to the increased risk of a fall from touching wheels and because it is club policy. But no one is going to fall off on a 1km hill climb, probably on a closed road.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • wycombewheeler wrote:

       Is it equally barmy for pedestrians crossing the road, people using stairs, ladders? getting out of the bath?

       — wycombewheeler

       Personally, when crossing the road, going up the stairs or getting out of the bath I’m not going 30 mph and will hit tarmac with my head at that speed if I have a mishap. But top notch analogy.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Your polystyrene cycle helmet

         Your polystyrene cycle helmet will provide very little protection to you if you are hitting the ground with downward velocity of 30mph, though you are going to have to falling from a very tall bicycle to be doing this.

         Now hitting a kerb or street furniture would seem more apt, but as I say very little protection.

         And when crossing the road, it’s more to so with the speed of the vehicle that hits you than anything else.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • ktache wrote:

           Your polystyrene cycle helmet…

           — ktache

           Why do folks always love to quote the fact that cycle helmets are made of polystyrene as if it somehow undermines their protective capacity? Polystyrene is an amazingly strong material used extensively in high-stress and/or protective applications, e.g. car head restraints, side impact protection, bumper filler, child seats, even surfboards. It’s also (and this amuses me because anti-helemteers are often at pains to stress the difference between cycle and motorcycle helmets) the primary component of all motorcycle helemts, in fact a motorcycle helmet is effectively simply a thicker cycle helmet, but oddly I haven’t see many people saying they’re useless and motorcyclists are fools to wear them.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           Your polystyrene cycle helmet…

           — Rendel Harris

           Why do folks always love to quote the fact that cycle helmets are made of polystyrene as if it somehow undermines their protective capacity? Polystyrene is an amazingly strong material used extensively in high-stress and/or protective applications, e.g. car head restraints, side impact protection, bumper filler, child seats, even surfboards. It’s also (and this amuses me because anti-helemteers are often at pains to stress the difference between cycle and motorcycle helmets) the primary component of all motorcycle helemts, in fact a motorcycle helmet is effectively simply a thicker cycle helmet, but oddly I haven’t see many people saying they’re useless and motorcyclists are fools to wear them.

           — ktache

            

           Cool story bro!!! 
           But to get back to the valid points made that you attempted to reply to,  rather than your obfuscations, please do link pics of you wearing helmets when driving and climbing ladders!

       • And yet these are the

         And yet these are the majority of people prsenting to A&E with head injuries.

         1) If you’re coming off at 30mph you should be looking at your riding style before adding a helmet so you can be reckless

         2) regardless of speed of movement the impact speed of head hitting the ground is unchanged. There will potentially be the addition of a large amount of friction while sliding, perhaps a kevlar cap rather than a helmet.

         3) If your head hits something at 30mph a flimsy cycle helmet is just not going to cut it. Do you cycle in a motorbike helmet?

         You just demonstrated the very common over estimation of the risks and underestimation of the efficacy of helmets.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • wycombewheeler wrote:

           1) If you’re coming off at 30mph you should be looking at your riding style before adding a helmet so you can be reckless

           — wycombewheeler

           Typical patronising anti-helmeter comment. Do you have such a great riding style that it protects you against loose gravel, tyre blowouts, animals running into the road etc? If so then fine, perhaps you don’t need a helmet. We poor fallible mortals recognise that however well and carefully we ride there is always the potential for crashing.

         • Pro helmeters:

           Pro helmeters:

           I wear a helmet so I reckon everyone else should wear helmets also.

           Pragmatists:
           But you would do better to wear a helmet doing other activities also then!?

           Pro Helemetists:
           Oh dont be silly thats ridiculous. I’ll be fine. 

           Its clear black and white hypocrisy. 

         • For the avoidance of doubt, I

           Where have I said everyone should wear a helmet? I fully support the individual’s right to make their own choice; that doesn’t mean I have to agree with that choice.

           For the avoidance of doubt, I’m debating with people on here who have properly argued points of view and are interested in debate, I’m not interested in silly needlers who just want argument, and so this is the only response you’ll be getting from me.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           1) If you’re coming off at 30mph you should be looking at your riding style before adding a helmet so you can be reckless

           — Rendel Harris

           Typical patronising anti-helmeter comment.

           — wycombewheeler

           Typically patronising and ignorant pro-helmet comment.

           You generally post sensible stuff but your attitude on this topic is disappointing. Please read more widely before presuming to know about a topic as contentious as this. A good place to start is the paragon of sensible and reasoned advocacy, CB:

           https://chrisboardman.com/blog/index_files/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd90e-1.html

           Also, most people that oppose helmet compulsion and disagree with some of the arguments in favour of a holey polystyrene hat are simply trying to correct decades of dubious marketing as to the real value of this item while cycling. The vast majority do not want to stop anyone who wishes to wear one, we simply do not want to be forced, coerced or pressured into wearing one ourselves every time we ride.

           For the record, I own 3 cycle helmets. I use them when I (not you) deem it appropriate. That’s my choice. I suspect that I have spent considerably more time than you mulling this topic, reading, researching and listening to various people over the years. That’s not to say I know it all – far from it – but that my PoV is based on facts.

         • I’m not going to waste too

           I’m not going to waste too much time addressing such astonishing arrogance, but I would recommend you go back over my comments and see if you find anywhere where I say helmets should be mandatory. You won’t find any because I haven’t and I’ve frequently explicitly stated that they shouldn’t be. If it makes you feel clever to act as if I’ve said that and then claim you know far more about it than I, fill your boots.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           I’m not going to waste too much time addressing such astonishing arrogance, but I would recommend you go back over my comments and see if you find anywhere where I say helmets should be mandatory.

           — Rendel Harris

           You may not be directly but you’re chastising people who do not want to wear one. Opinions like yours give fuel for people wanting to pass laws, compulsion by stealth.

           Have you read the Boardman article?

           No I’m not feeling ‘clever’, you’re missing the point. I’ve been mulling this topic over and over for 15 years. I’m betting you’ve not given it anywhere near that much time and effort before telling me what I should be wearing on my head.

         • Simon E wrote:

            

           No I’m not feeling ‘clever’, you’re missing the point. I’ve been mulling this topic over and over for 15 years. I’m betting you’ve not given it anywhere near that much time and effort before telling me what I should be wearing on my head.

           — Simon E

           I’ve been thinking about helmets and researching whether they are worthwhile since reading Richard Ballantine’s advocacy of them in the copy of Richard’s Bicycle Book I was given for my birthday in 1986. Which is rather longer than fifteen years, so don’t try lording it over me on those grounds, thank you.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           I’ve been thinking about helmets and researching whether they are worthwhile since reading Richard Ballantine’s advocacy of them in the copy of Richard’s Bicycle Book I was given for my birthday in 1986.

           — Rendel Harris

           Wow, that’s impressive. I definitely can’t match that.

           It’s therefore a missed opportunity that you didn’t call on that extensive knowledge to provide a more convincing case for wearing them.

           Are you in favour of wearing helmets while on a ladder or walking downstairs?

           Did you read the Boardman piece?

         • If you’re coming off at 30mph

           If you’re coming off at 30mph you should be looking at your riding style before adding a helmet so you can be reckless

           A textbook A* Dim comment.

     • I regularly call for the

       I regularly call for the introduction of mandatory driving (and passenger) helmets to show the hypocrisy and idiocy of those calling for it for cycle helmets.

       And no in car stereos or indeed closed windows for those saying that cycling with earphones should be banned.

       I mean, if only it saves one life…

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • ktache wrote:

         I regularly call for the introduction of mandatory driving (and passenger) helmets to show the hypocrisy and idiocy of those calling for it for cycle helmets.

         And no in car stereos or indeed closed windows for those saying that cycling with earphones should be banned.

         I mean, if only it saves one life…

         — ktache

         it’s such a red herring though, there has been no serious intiative by any political party to introduce compulsory helmets and I’m prepared to bet my mortgage it will never happen in the UK, so why does everyone get so antsy about it? Why do people get so het up about something that will always be a matter of personal choice?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           I regularly call for the introduction of mandatory driving (and passenger) helmets to show the hypocrisy and idiocy of those calling for it for cycle helmets.

           And no in car stereos or indeed closed windows for those saying that cycling with earphones should be banned.

           I mean, if only it saves one life…

           — Rendel Harris

           it’s such a red herring though, there has been no serious intiative by any political party to introduce compulsory helmets and I’m prepared to bet my mortgage it will never happen in the UK, so why does everyone get so antsy about it? Why do people get so het up about something that will always be a matter of personal choice?

           — ktache

           You’re ignoring countries that do introduce mandatory cycle helmet laws (which inevitably reduce cycling) and there’s definitely a helmet-blame culture in this country whereby not wearing a helmet (i.e. personal choice) will get you abuse from certain people. There’s been plenty of cases where police will question cyclist victims of road collisions about whether they were wearing a helmet even when that is utterly irrelevant to the investigation. There’s also cases of schools where the children are prohibited from cycling to and from school unless they are wearing a helmet. I’ve also seen many comments on this site where people have been insulted for not wearing helmets (e.g. stupid, ignoring safety etc).

           That’s the problem – it should be a matter of personal choice but the wearing of helmets is used as a way of marking out cyclists as an out-group and making them responsible for not getting too injured when hit by poor drivers rather than focussing on actually making roads safer.

           (I’m more of a helmet-agnostic, but I do wear one whilst cycling to appease Mrs Hawkinspeter though luckily it’s only been effective for low hanging branches)

     • Risk of falling off a bike is
       Risk of falling off a bike is low
       But not that low. Experienced 68 year old cyclist, Christmas Eve 2020:

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Risk of falling off one’s
         Risk of falling off one’s office chair is low. Experienced 52 year old chair sitter, August 15th 2018, A&E with concussion and neck pain. Funilly enough, not one person in the whole medical treatment chain asked if a helmet was being worn and they are still not mandated in the office.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Mungecrundle wrote:

           Risk of falling off one’s office chair is low. Experienced 52 year old chair sitter, August 15th 2018, A&E with concussion and neck pain. Funilly enough, not one person in the whole medical treatment chain asked if a helmet was being worn and they are still not mandated in the office.

           — Mungecrundle

           Well you must like to live dangerously then. I for one wear a seatbelt in my office chair for just this kind of possible calamity!

         • Risk of falling off one’s

           Risk of falling off one’s office chair is low

           This topic has become even more barmy since I last looked. It is bedevilled by a lack of appreciation of numbers/ probabilities, a load of pseudo-science, an absence of sense and stupendously unfunny attempts at humour. I have worn a helmet on practically every trip by bike since I asked someone to bring me one back from the US 45 or more years ago- I had seen American cyclists wearing the early ones ?Bell. I have had very few accidents, but  they happen ‘out of the blue’ and there is no doubt that the smashed helmet I showed below saved my brain from a worse injury even though my right shoulder and hip fortunately took a lot of the bash. As it was I suffered some degree of pre and post traumatic amnesia.

           Penalty from wearing a helmet : Zero for almost all of us almost all of the time. It even provides a handy place to hang a waterproof cover.

           Benefit from wearing a helmet: could be massive. Conclusion: obvious. I don’t think there are any serious proposals to make helmet wearing compulsory, or to make an absence of a helmet ‘contributory negligence’- although there probably some judge or coroner daft comments out there. I have no intention of criticising Boardman for not wearing a helmet on some of his public outings. I think most people who don’t wear a helmet for most of their cycling hours are barmy. Most of them will get away with it, but I’m hoping to avoid joining those who don’t.

     • I was deliberately knocked

       I was deliberately knocked off my bike and my cycle helmet was cracked right through. That would have been my cranium without it, and I do not think I would have got up from that (to be assaulted by the driver!)

       The risk of falling off a bike is low, as is the risk of crashing a car – but I always wear a seatbelt. The risk of death when playing Russian roulette is (relatively) low, but I would still not be keen to play – even if the barrel could accomodate 100 bullets.

       If others do not want to wear a helmet, that is their choice. I’ve not heard any serious calls for compulsion.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Crazyhorse wrote:

         I was deliberately knocked off my bike and my cycle helmet was cracked right through. That would have been my cranium without it,…

         — Crazyhorse

         Sorry to hear that and glad you came through OK. But a helmet that cracked right through is a helmet that failed to protect you. Helmets work through the action of the EPS being irreversibly crushed. This lengthens the distance through which the head is brought to a halt, thereby reducing the deceleration of the head and the brain within. A helmet that simply breaks apart on impact has done very little – other factors not to do with the helmet likely saved your bacon.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • One thing that muddies the

           One thing that muddies the whole helmet debate in the UK is that if you wear a helmet you are more likely to be hit by a driver. Drivers drive less safely around people who they perceive as ‘experienced’ cyclists [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,collision%2C%20the%20research%20has%20found.] So the overall effect of a helmet might be positive if I only ever rode off road, but given that I mostly ride road, and my only real risk of coming off comes from being twatted by an oblivious driver…the upshot of a helmet is likely to be an overall increase of risk in injury.

         • fwhite181 wrote:

           One thing that muddies the whole helmet debate in the UK is that if you wear a helmet you are more likely to be hit by a driver. Drivers drive less safely around people who they perceive as ‘experienced’ cyclists [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,collision%2C%20the%20research%20has%20found.] So the overall effect of a helmet might be positive if I only ever rode off road, but given that I mostly ride road, and my only real risk of coming off comes from being twatted by an oblivious driver…the upshot of a helmet is likely to be an overall increase of risk in injury.

           — fwhite181

           That research is fifteen years old and undertaken at a time when helmet use was far less prevalent, so drivers would have assumed that helmetted cyclists were experienced. Now they are so widely used, it’s doubtful that assumption still exists. And in any case, although this reseach is so frequently quoted the actual findings are not so widely quoted: that on average drivers passed 8.5 cms closer (about the length of your forefinger) to helmetted than non-helmetted cyclists – a negligible distance. And that’s all it proved, no cyclists in the experiment were involved in collisions, so it did not, as you claim, show that wearing a helmet increases the risk of injury, it simply showed that cyclists with helmets (in 2006) were passed a finger’s length closer than those without, that’s all.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           One thing that muddies the whole helmet debate in the UK is that if you wear a helmet you are more likely to be hit by a driver. Drivers drive less safely around people who they perceive as ‘experienced’ cyclists [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,collision%2C%20the%20research%20has%20found.] So the overall effect of a helmet might be positive if I only ever rode off road, but given that I mostly ride road, and my only real risk of coming off comes from being twatted by an oblivious driver…the upshot of a helmet is likely to be an overall increase of risk in injury.

           — Rendel Harris

           That research is fifteen years old and undertaken at a time when helmet use was far less prevalent, so drivers would have assumed that helmetted cyclists were experienced. Now they are so widely used, it’s doubtful that assumption still exists. And in any case, although this reseach is so frequently quoted the actual findings are not so widely quoted: that on average drivers passed 8.5 cms closer (about the length of your forefinger) to helmetted than non-helmetted cyclists – a negligible distance. And that’s all it proved, no cyclists in the experiment were involved in collisions, so it did not, as you claim, show that wearing a helmet increases the risk of injury, it simply showed that cyclists with helmets (in 2006) were passed a finger’s length closer than those without, that’s all.

           — fwhite181

           Whilst that experiment needs to be taken with a pinch of salt due to its limitations, you’re not correct about no cyclists being involved in collisions:

           Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.

            

         • https://www.researchgate.net

           https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337367329_Effects_of_bicycle_helmet_wearing_on_accident_and_injury_rates/link/5dd44b1a458515cd48abf9e0/download A more recent and multi-national study: the number of accidents and injuries in cyclists increases with greater helmet usage. The authors acknowledge that a bunch of this could be to do with the culture of countries that mandate/promote helmet usage above actually providing infrastructure and respecting cyclists. But the upshot is that if we want safe cycling, telling people to wear helmets really isn’t the best approach.

           I’m not saying don’t wear a helmet, I always do. But don’t present them as a way of genuinely reducing risk to cyclists. Almost any casual cyclist will almost always be infinitely better served by good infrastructure than they will be by a glorified polystyrene cup. 

         • I think you meant to reply to

           I think you meant to reply to Rendel. I can’t recall presenting helmets as a solution to anything except low-hanging branches (and my kitchen doorway that I sometimes bump my head on whilst wearing my helmet as it makes me a cm or two taller).

           Interesting study though.

         • hawkinspeter]

            

           [quote]Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.

           — hawkinspeter

           I stand corrected. However that is shockingly bad research practice for the researcher to also act as subject – the possibility of confirmation bias coming in is huge.

         • Rendel Harris]

           It simply showed that cyclists with helmets (in 2006) were passed a finger’s length closer than those without, that’s all.

           — Rendel Harris

           You seem to have fallen foul of the fallacy of averages – on average passes were that much closer does not mean that all passes were that much closer. It could do, but it could equally mean that most passes were unchanged, while a minority were a lot closer.

         • Sriracha wrote:

           But a helmet that cracked right through is a helmet that failed to protect you. Helmets work through the action of the EPS being irreversibly crushed. This lengthens the distance through which the head is brought to a halt, thereby reducing the deceleration of the head and the brain within. A helmet that simply breaks apart on impact has done very little – other factors not to do with the helmet likely saved your bacon.

           — Sriracha

           This is so often stated and is simply not true. Yes, the EPS is designed to crush to absorb impact; if the impact is hard enough then it will, ultimately, like any other material, reach breaking point and crack, having already performed its shock absorbing duties. If you can show a helmet that has simply broken apart without any crushing of the EPS, that is a helmet that hasn’t done its job, but I’ve never seen or heard of that happening.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           But a helmet that cracked right through is a helmet that failed to protect you. Helmets work through the action of the EPS being irreversibly crushed. This lengthens the distance through which the head is brought to a halt, thereby reducing the deceleration of the head and the brain within. A helmet that simply breaks apart on impact has done very little – other factors not to do with the helmet likely saved your bacon.

           — Rendel Harris

           This is so often stated and is simply not true. Yes, the EPS is designed to crush to absorb impact; if the impact is hard enough then it will, ultimately, like any other material, reach breaking point and crack,[b] having already performed its shock absorbing duties[/b]. If you can show a helmet that has simply broken apart without any crushing of the EPS, that is a helmet that hasn’t done its job, but I’ve never seen or heard of that happening.— Sriracha
           True enough, hence I said, “A helmet that [b]simply breaks apart[/b] …”. But I could have been clearer. If the EPS crushes then it’s done its job, up to that point.

           The way I read Crazyhorse’s account implied that it was the cracking apart of the helmet which sacrificially saved his head from the same fate – but for the fact that the helmet cracked it would have been my head instead. That needs to be dispelled.

         • I’ve seen pictures on this

           I’ve seen pictures on this site of helmets that have split in two, but show negligible compression of the EPS (as far as can be determined from a photo).

           There seems to be a “cargo cult” around the protective effects of cycle helmets whereby some people will believe that because a helmet cracked, it must have saved your skull from cracking. This is despite the fact that it is relatively easy to crack a helmet in two using your hands (and maybe a knee or two) but very difficult to crack a skull in two using your hands (disclaimer: I have not tried that).

           There’s also people who over-state the protective benefits, such as when you wrote about crashing at 30mph – that’s way beyond the safety tests for cycle helmets and unreasonable to expect that cycle helmets would be over-engineered to provide substantial protection beyond the standards (which would make a helmet heavier and thus less appealing to most cyclists). That seems to me to be an article of faith rather than evidence based.

           However, St Chris hit the nail on the head with his statements about helmets and hi-viz not even being in the top 10 of cycling safety factors.

           Also, I’d like to submit that white paint on roads (A.K.A. cycle lanes) are akin to a protective ward. Not much evidence that they increase safety and some evidence that they reduce safety.

            

         • You can’t generally tell if

           You can’t generally tell if EPS has been crushed without using a micrometer and/or microscope.

           To clarify, when talking about coming off at 30mph I was thinking of the  sort of slide off one might experience on a wet corner, hitting the ground hip and shoulder first but then bumping the noggin or dragging it across the tarmac. Obviously I’m not claiming a helmet will save you in a head-on 30mph impact, because it won’t.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           You can’t generally tell if EPS has been crushed without using a micrometer and/or microscope.

           To clarify, when talking about coming off at 30mph I was thinking of the  sort of slide off one might experience on a wet corner, hitting the ground hip and shoulder first but then bumping the noggin or dragging it across the tarmac. Obviously I’m not claiming a helmet will save you in a head-on 30mph impact, because it won’t.

           — Rendel Harris

           If the EPS only deforms a small amount, then I’m surprised that it’s absorbing much energy at all. I could make a visible dent using my fingers, so surely a crash would leave some visible sign of deformation?

       • Crazyhorse wrote:

         I was deliberately knocked off my bike and my cycle helmet was cracked right through. That would have been my cranium without it, and I do not think I would have got up from that (to be assaulted by the driver!)

         The risk of falling off a bike is low, as is the risk of crashing a car – but I always wear a seatbelt. The risk of death when playing Russian roulette is (relatively) low, but I would still not be keen to play – even if the barrel could accomodate 100 bullets.

         If others do not want to wear a helmet, that is their choice. I’ve not heard any serious calls for compulsion.

         — Crazyhorse

         Still amazing that the number of people who have been ‘kept alive by a bike helmet’ far exceeds the numbers that were dying before their introduction.

         Also that countries where no one wheres helmets have far fewer cyclist deaths per mile travelled than countries with mandatory helmets.

         Yes, your head would have hit the floor, it’s possible that you would have been rendered unconcious, but I very much doubt your skull would have broken in half like the cycle helmet.

         Risk of falling off a bike on a single journey is much smaller than 1:100 and consequences significantly less severe the a gunshot, so your analagy is absurd. 1/100 helmetless cyclists do not die every year, never mind every trip.

         Log In or Register to post comments

8. That is clearly a paraplegic

   That is clearly a paraplegic Wookiee with its support human, I applaude its passion to stay active.

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. Quote:

   a mountain stage featuring gravel roads and a finish up a ski slope…Insert jokes about Primož Roglič…

   Except it’s a ski slope, not a ski jump. Though I would love to see them try to tackle a stage finish up a ski jump – that would be kind of hilarious.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • mdavidford wrote:

     …

     Except it’s a ski slope, not a ski jump. ….

     — mdavidford

     And it’s DOOR mirrors, FFS!

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Captain Badger wrote:

       …

       Except it’s a ski slope, not a ski jump. ….

       — Captain Badger

       And it’s DOOR mirrors, FFS!

       — mdavidford

       

       Yeah – OK – so I just wanted to give everyone the mental image of the peloton attempting to struggle up a ski jump.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • mdavidford wrote:

         ….

         

         Yeah – OK – so I just wanted to give everyone the mental image of the peloton attempting to struggle up a ski jump.

         — mdavidford

         Yeah I know, just being me, sorry couldn’t resist

         Log In or Register to post comments