‘We need to stop finger-wagging about helmets’; Paradise Lost: Snake Pass no longer open to cyclists; Ganna's not-so-marginal gains; Puerile puns at Paris-Nice; Prog and the Peloton; Cycling > convoluted petrol-saving tips+ more on the live blog

Adam Sutton wrote:

I've never criticized someone for not wearing a helmet, or told someone they should. I have had a torrent of abuse and whataboutism thrown my way when explaining why I chose to wear a helmet. "Finger wagging" works both ways, and that experience certainly showed there are some a*holes in the cycling community.

Doesn't matter what kind of seat, they can have a*holes on top of them...

On the other hand I've never felt that an a*hole on a bike was about to kill me using their bike but give someone a bit of armour and a lot more power and it's a different story.

(Full thought - I have had [very young] youths ride at me on bikes and twice had to take evasive action - although that just shows why we don't let kids have motorbikes / cars, I guess!)

chrisonatrike wrote:

Doesn't matter what kind of seat, they can have a*holes on top of them...

On the other hand I've never felt that an a*hole on a bike was about to kill me using their bike but give someone a bit of armour and a lot more power and it's a different story.

(Full thought - I have had [very young] youths ride at me on bikes and twice had to take evasive action - although that just shows why we don't let kids have motorbikes / cars, I guess!)

Part of the issue that is it always comes back to cars/motorists, when they are not the only hazard when riding.

Of course a helmet is going to have negligble effect in a more serious RTA, but the fact is I still have a lump on the inside of lip from when I nearly bit through it having fallen on a greasy road and hit my head on the kerb. I've seen people share similar or worse instaces, often sharing photos of trashed helmets only to be mocked and derided.

In reference to your youth comment I have to agree, having watched three on bikes this Sunday mount the pedestrian refuge at the bottom to come past me, and speed through the junction like it wasn't there. Not a lot of brains in any instance, even less when you consider there is a haulage company there, so a lot of HGV traffic.

 I've seen people share similar or worse instances, often sharing photos of trashed helmets only to be mocked and derided

It's a recurrent theme on here, in which the anti-helmet activists copy anti-vaxxers and erect imaginary barricades of 'threats to make helmet wearing compulsory, like in Queensland, or whatever' in order to fight against this infringement of their liberty which not only doesn't exist, but isn't even proposed to exist. I wear a helmet all the time when cycling (but, to answer the mocking questions before they're asked, not in the house or ordinarily when walking, and always when climbing or when I know I'm at risk of stonefall) but have never derided or discouraged any non-family non-wearers and anyone is, in my view, welcome to not wear a helmet

Adam Sutton wrote:

... the fact is I still have a lump on the inside of lip from when I nearly bit through it having fallen on a greasy road and hit my head on the kerb. I've seen people share similar or worse instaces, often sharing photos of trashed helmets only to be mocked and derided.

You would still have hit your head and bitten your lip, had you been wearing a helmet.

You would still have hit your head and bitten your lip, had you been wearing a helmet

Very likely- it all rather depends on whether you are confident that your brains will be manly enough to shrug off the impact with no deterioration in performance. If so, you may be right.

wtjs wrote:

You would still have hit your head and bitten your lip, had you been wearing a helmet

Very likely- it all rather depends on whether you are confident that your brains will be manly enough to shrug off the impact with no deterioration in performance. If so, you may be right.

I'll have you know that my brains are incredibly manly

(that being said, my wife said she'd kill me if I ever got injured by not wearing a helmet, so a helmet it is...).

brooksby wrote:

I'll have you know that my brains are incredibly manly

I'm not sure that's necessarily anything to boast about.

brooksby wrote:

Adam Sutton wrote:

... the fact is I still have a lump on the inside of lip from when I nearly bit through it having fallen on a greasy road and hit my head on the kerb. I've seen people share similar or worse instaces, often sharing photos of trashed helmets only to be mocked and derided.

You would still have hit your head and bitten your lip, had you been wearing a helmet.

To be clear. I was wearing a helmet. The result was a busted lip and walk back home and call to my boss to say I would be working from home, rather than potentially a trip to A&E with a busted head.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Part of the issue that is it always comes back to cars/motorists, when they are not the only hazard when riding.

Of course a helmet is going to have negligble effect in a more serious RTA, but the fact is I still have a lump on the inside of lip from when I nearly bit through it having fallen on a greasy road and hit my head on the kerb. I've seen people share similar or worse instaces, often sharing photos of trashed helmets only to be mocked and derided.

People probably wear a helmet or not then the "reasons" come later.  I used to always wear one, now I rarely do.  I could give reasons but if I'm honest at no point did I sit down and go through all the statistics etc.  I think the strong emotions in these debates are a sign that the reasoning / evidence itself is not the main thing!

When some cyclists get triggered by "a helmet saved my life" or "just do it" it's commonly because there are some loud voices shouting "wear helmets!" and often they:

a) don't actually care very much about people on bikes - or indeed care for them.  So this appears to be "selective concern". Just like objections to cycle paths - or even lanes - often include "what about the ambulances / old people / disabled ...?" (frequently raised by the able) or "but pollution!" (generally raised by people driving cars).

b) don't have a grasp of the limitations of the protection offered or the likely threats.

I've asked some non-cyclists or occasional cyclists about this. As far as they've thought about it at all (most haven't) the common feeling is you should wear a helmet because cars might run into you.  That threat is much more salient than the prosaic "I fell off / over" although the possible protective benefit is likely much less.  We're over-sensitive to risks from others.  "Stranger danger" if you will.

chrisonatrike wrote:

When some cyclists get triggered by "a helmet saved my life" or "just do it" it's commonly because there are some loud voices shouting "wear helmets!" and often they:

a) don't actually care very much about people on bikes - or indeed care for them.  So this appears to be "selective concern". Just like objections to cycle paths - or even lanes - often include "what about the ambulances / old people / disabled ...?" (frequently raised by the able) or "but pollution!" (generally raised by people driving cars).

b) don't have a grasp of the limitations of the protection offered or the likely threats.

I've asked some non-cyclists or occasional cyclists about this. As far as they've thought about it at all (most haven't) the common feeling is you should wear a helmet because cars might run into you.  That threat is much more salient than the prosaic "I fell off / over" although the possible protective benefit is likely much less.  We're over-sensitive to risks from others.  "Stranger danger" if you will.

Not really the case when it is two cyclists sharing their experiences from either side of the debate. At the end of the day the point I was making is one that there is as much finger wagging from those advocating not wearing helmets. 

WTJS comment was on point. They are often so vehemently opposed that they come across like antivaxxers. Quite honestly it was why I gave up on using twitter to engage with cyclists. Facebook was better as you can find groups of like minded people.

Adam Sutton wrote:

I've never criticized someone for not wearing a helmet, or told someone they should. I have had a torrent of abuse and whataboutism thrown my way when explaining why I chose to wear a helmet. "Finger wagging" works both ways, and that experience certainly showed there are some a*holes in the cycling community.

That's interesting (and disappointing). While things can get heated in debates on road.cc, I don't recall that being the case around here. I've never criticised someone for their choice either way.

IME it's the helmet zealots - and all sorts of uninformed people who can't bear to question some assumptions about helmets as PPE - that are very quick to criticise those who want cycling to be normalised by not promoting helmets.

As someone who wears one for racing and riding on a dedicated circuit or track but not for everyday riding I've had plenty of comments and criticism, often from non-cyclists whose opinions I did not solicit.

Edit: this is the kind of shit I was thinking about.

wtjs wrote:

the anti-helmet activists copy anti-vaxxers and erect imaginary barricades of 'threats to make helmet wearing compulsory, like in Queensland, or whatever' in order to fight against this infringement of their liberty which not only doesn't exist, but isn't even proposed to exist.

How can anyone have a sensible conversation when incendiary bollocks like this is tossed into the argument?

To be fair neither have I on here. Twitter is the worse, but then that is twitter! LOL

Adam Sutton wrote:

To be fair neither have I on here. Twitter is the worse, but then that is twitter! LOL

Ah, that would explain it. Dear old Twitter...

How can anyone have a sensible conversation when incendiary bollocks..

Easily! By not writing bollocks themselves and describing the writing of others as 'shit'

wtjs wrote:

How can anyone have a sensible conversation when incendiary bollocks..

Easily! By not writing bollocks themselves and describing the writing of others as 'shit'

Well, it is a crock of shit. You wrote it, I'm just describing it.

If you try writing something less shit then perhaps we could have a reasonable discussion. Until then...

Hats off to Ned for not only recognising he'd slipped up ...

Agreed, but I think it has always been the case that cyclists would give way in these circumstances.

well it depends very much what the actual TRO for this road closure says, and since the county council are now saying its been closed for safety reasons to cyclists and walkers as well, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-60663123

and being staffed 24hrs per day as its been claimed the road has been used for car night races, I suspect you would likely be commiting a non endorseable offence if you now ignored the sign and guidance from the staff on site.

aiui Snake pass has closed previously due to land slip and preventative maintenance, using a similar TRO closure notice, and cyclists werent permitted access, so this isnt really that out of the ordinary.

and if people continue to ignore the red sign, and the barriers, Im sure the police will be along with a blue road closed sign and be very happy to take down everyones particulars.

Awavey wrote:

...well it depends very much what the actual TRO for this road closure says..., 

No it doesn't.  Because it is unreasonable to expect every road user in the UK to be familiar with every TRO in existence it depends on what the sign says.  Signs matter.  They are carefully designed to fulfil specific purposes and are in no way the vague, wishy-washy objects you suggest.  There is a sign prohibiting cycling, you can look it up.  In this case it was not used therefore there was no meaningful intention to stop cycling.

..... Im sure the police will be along with a blue road closed sign and be very happy to take down everyones particulars.

And if it's a square sign it does not prohibit cycling regardless of its colour. If there is a uniformed police officer in attendance he can stop you, but the sign does not have that power.