Noel Gallagher says the only downside of cycling is "the f***ing helmet"

Says he mainly does off road. I'd definitely wear a lid off road.

Says he's off-roading on country roads. Not really clear what that means.

Unless your house backs on to a forest, chances are you have to use roads to go off road. I don't see the conflict.

But he doesn't say 'I have to go on country roads', he says 'it's on country roads', which which kind of suggests all or most of it. I think he just has a different definition of 'off-roading' than most people here would have.

Off-roading on roads must be rather like "slowly walking down the hall...faster than a cannonball", I guess.

Should not your answer have been 'definitely maybe'?

Lukas wrote:

Should not your answer have been 'definitely maybe'?

I served up some Oasis soup to her last night. It's just soup from a can, but you get a roll with it.

Do read this anti-helmet cretins. It might just change your opinion, save the NHS a sizeable sum of money, and perhaps even save your life:
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists...

Not sure if you've actually read that document. It concludes that a helmet is little use in a collision with a vehicle and mentions that where compulsory have reduced cycling numbers. I always wear a helmet when commuting or off-road but don't if I'm making sort trips in regular clothes. Ultimately it's down to the level of risk you're prepared to accept. Given the stats on pedestrian casualties from cars you could easily argue that they should also wear protective kit.

And don't forget driving helmets for all drivers and passengers.

And all of the drunk and drug driving, "distracted" driving and speeding causing injury and death, costing the NHS loads.

I still believe gloves will protct you more often than a helmet.  Where are the scientific studies we can argue over that.  The 100 comment "debates", the full finger or mitt shouting match.

Oh, and Nomex fire resistant suits for motor vehicle occupents, can't be too careful.  All that fuel and all that...

first of all, cars have a lot more protection for the drivers than we have a cyclists so there is less of a need for in car protection.

And also gloves will protect your hands from road rash perhaps but not from any broken bones. a helmet will protect your head, which is a much more important body part and any damage to the head can lead to consequences, maybe not immediately but possibly further down the line.

i do understand you're being sarcastic but even for people who don't want to wear helmets because they are happy to gamble with their personal safety, their possible head injuries that could have been prevented are going to put a burden on the healthcare system, which is selfish

I think you're misunderstanding ktache.

Every time someone mentions cycling helmets and how effective they are and how dangerous it is to cycle without one, they're missing the point that cycling is actually quite a safe activity and the huge health benefits that cycling brings is obviously a boon to the NHS. However, the apparent dangers of riding on roads puts off a lot of potential cyclists and is often quoted as a reason why people choose to use a car instead. So, by concentrating on a tiny aspect of safety (PPE is the last and least effective method of reducing danger) you're actually making people more afraid of cycling and thus putting a bigger burden on the healthcare system.

Also, note that a lot of people who dislike the constant elevation of helmets as the most important aspect of cycling, are often helmet users themselves, so there's not really much need for the patronising attitude that a lot of helmet advocates use.

There are a few more factors to take in account than simply putting on a helmet.

It is not the b&w panacea you suggest.

That's interesting about RoSPA - not a view I'd heard before. Is it one of these that is or has become a respectable front for vested interests?

FWIW, on helmets I wear one - I don't expect it will be of much help if I collide with a car, possibly slightly better than nothing. Like the sleeves on my jersey it keeps the sun and the cold air off, and like my glasses, protects me from overhanging branches and brambles. 

I don't entertain victim blaming for the absence of any safety enhancement ("or you could drive to the conditions") and I will be manning the barricades if the subject of mandatory helmets (hi viz, insurance, etc) ever comes near our law making machinery.  

There us no need to be so unpleasant. The English language has enough words to express ones feelings without beubg rude.

I do assume that your ill judged abuse would be targeted many fold to those who chose to abuse the NHS. Let us say smokers, fast food eaters or city dwellers shall we.

Better still keep opinions quietly to yourself. It would be the polite thing to do .

michophull wrote:

Do read this anti-helmet cretins. It might just change your opinion, save the NHS a sizeable sum of money, and perhaps even save your life:
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists...

Hi, anti-helmet cretin here, just the odd couple of GCSEs, BSc (hons) and MSc.

I'm afraid the source you quote, RoSPA, is recognised as having a long history of not supporting measures to make cycling safe, and supporting the driver lobby, so much so that cycling organisations left it.  It also has a long history of publishing misinformation, lies, about helmets.  While it's good to see that they're beginning to change, they've got a long way to go before anyone informed takes their views as justified.

That said, they do, finally, acknowledge that helmets and their promotion is a failure of basic safety provision "However, it is important to remember that cycle helmets do not prevent crashes from happening. It is therefore vital that through infrastructure improvements, supported by education and training that we reduce the primary risk factors."

Then they go on to quote the entirely corrupt Cochrane review, and a load of other studies which show that helmets are effective, but not one that doesn't, so they haven't changed much.  Still liars.

michophull wrote:

Do read this anti-helmet cretins. It might just change your opinion, save the NHS a sizeable sum of money, and perhaps even save your life:
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists...

Huh? Did you mean to reply to me as I don't understand the relevance. Was it because I posted a picture of a squirrel with a guitar and not a helmet?

Anyway, good luck with your winning personality and way with words.

There's no need to call people names like that. Have a read of this:

http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/