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
SUMMARY
Jeremy Vine gives black cab driver benefit of the doubt
At first I thought this is one shocking bit of driving, but on watching it back I’m not sure the driver expected oncoming traffic (i.e. me) to appear with the right of way. Benefit of the doubt? You decide… pic.twitter.com/neqtD5uoQ4
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) February 23, 2021
Jeremy Vine’s left this one up to us to decide if the taxi driver was in the wrong here. Clearly the broadcaster had right of way, although it sounds like he has some sympathy for the driver considering the road Jeremy came out of is one-way, except for the cycle lane which had roadworks. On the other hand, Vine also showed a picture of the sign telling drivers to give way to oncoming cyclists… certainly not the worst London cycling clip he’s shared…Two weeks ago he shared this clip of a driver blaring his horn as he passed, only to get stopped at the next set of lights…Or how about the motorist driving in the Hyde Park cycle lane…
Some have even suggested that Jeremy was in the wrong for cycling up a one-way street when the cycle lane is closed. That point has been rebutted by Vine who says the sign in the video shows the lane is still open…Have a watch, have a read and make your own minds up…
Let me help you Paul… pic.twitter.com/vYNGk1VQ1V
— 🚴🏻♂️Ralpha🚴🏻♂️ (@2wheelsnot4) February 23, 2021
I circled the cycling sign: the lane was open.
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) February 23, 2021
The ‘is the cycle lane open or closed’ question is a complete red herring
Wherever a cyclist comes from, you don’t turn across their path in two tonnes of metal
Forget right of way or priority, it’s a fundamental lack of respect for another life to do so
Be better, drivers
— Dr Johnny Bananas (@barbedquill) February 23, 2021
Campaign to save disused railways for future active travel routes
More than 10,000 people have signed a petition objecting to Highways England’s plans to demolish 100 disused railway bridges. Campaigners say the bridges could form future rail or active travel routes. Highways England intends to demolish up to 480 between now and 2030 with 115 bridges and tunnels already marked for phase one of the project.
An appraisal by The HRE Group, an alliance of engineers, cycling campaigners and greenway developers, found that roughly a third of the structures are already proposed for reuse as new cycle paths, reopened railways or heritage lines. Further information obtained through Freedom of Information Acts found that 55 (48%) of the bridges have not failed their assessments and 24 (21%) are regarded as fit for purpose.
Gordon Masterton is chair of the Institution of Civil Engineers’ Panel for Historical Engineering Works. He explained that the bridges and tunnels could play a key part in transitioning to a greener future. “Disused railways offer unique opportunities; many have already been repurposed through iconic active travel routes, enjoyed by millions of people every year,” Masterton said. “The value of existing infrastructure must be recognised as we evolve to greener modes of transport. Walking and cycling greatly benefit our health, wellbeing and the environment, and we need to build on the uptake seen during the first lockdown by creating more safe space.”
"Boss, can I get this bike?": Polite bike thief wearing face mask told where to go
It was nice of this would-be thief to ask before trying to nab a bike…Adhering to Covid regs too by wearing a face mask, what a stand-up young person…
The person who sent this video suggested the thief tries stealing a bike they can reach the pedals on next time…Approaching the cyclist, the child asks where he’s from to get him to stop before a fairly uncommitted effort at getting the bike. “Nah, you’re alright,” before riding away at a leisurely pace adds to the comedy scene.
“If only he had cleats and was 6’3 he could have ridden it. Oh and knew what fixed is! He would have crashed it five meters away,” our cyclist joked. He added that he saw the child with a group of adults who shouted to him before the youngster was sent in moments later…
Pair get £900 fine for cycling in town centre
Two people caught cycling in Grimsby town centre have been fined more than £450 each by North East Lincolnshire Council. The Lincolnite reports they appeared in court after failing to pay fines for cycling in a pedestrianised area of Victoria Street. Their £100 fixed penalty notice was bumped up to a £200 fine, £226 costs and £34 victim surcharge.
More than 40 people have been prosecuted for cycling in a prohibited zone since the council announced a crackdown on anti-social behaviour in the area in November. Councillor Ron Shepherd said: “We will fine you if you put other people at risk by cycling in Grimsby’s pedestrian zone. Those who choose not to pay the £100 fixed penalty notice, find themselves facing a larger bill in court. I’m grateful to the courts for supporting our stance.
“Shoppers, businesses and people working in the town centre often complain about nuisance cycling in the town centre. There’s no need to cycle in the pedestrian area – Bethlehem Street and Osborne Street are literally a few metres away and run parallel to it.”
Proposals received for Hammersmith ferry service
City Cruises and Uber Boat by Thames Clippers have submitted their proposals to Transport for London for operating a ferry service to transport cyclists and pedestrians across the Thames while Hammersmith Bridge is repaired. The service is expected to carry around 800 passengers an hour and will run from 06:00-22:00 on weekdays, with an off-peak service at weekends. Fares are expected to match buses from £1.55.
The news comes as TfL says it is working with other members of the Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce to agree a long-term solution for reopening the bridge to road users. £16.7 million has been spent by TfL on investigations, feasibility, design monitoring and early works. A further £4 million has been committed to repair work.
"Devastated" family of Tony Parsons appeal for information over cyclist's death
Tony Parsons’ family say they were “devastated” by the news that the cyclist’s body was found three years after he went missing and have appealed for anyone with information to come forward. Two men were arrested in connection with his disappearance at the start of the year but have since been released.
Parsons went missing during a charity bike ride in September 2017 and was last seen outside the Bridge of Orchy Hotel at around 23:30. He continued south on the A82 but there were no further sightings. His remains were found in a remote area near the A82 in January 2021 and Police have distributed flyers and posters in nearby Tyndrum. In a statement issued through Police Scotland, the cyclist’s son Mike said the last three years had been “incredibly hard”.
“We always hoped there would be a positive outcome and have now been left devastated by my dad’s death,” he said. “I know we cannot get closure until we find out who did this and why it happened, so I would ask anyone who may have even the smallest piece of information to please speak to the police and help us get the answers and closure we need.”
TikTok star accused of "abuse" for cycling with pet dog on his back
TikTok star Brodie That Dood has 1.4 million followers on the platform but faced a social media backlash after posting a video of him riding his sharp-looking Trek while carrying his dog on his back. Citics have said it’s abuse and puts his dog in danger, others wanted to know why he wasn’t wearing a helmet?
Karlito Sanchez commented: “Good cyclists still fall, aren’t you afraid to hurt your fluffy boy?” Makeyaownhustle called it the “dumbest thing I’ve seen today.”
Jaminlou got straight to the point with his reply: “What an excuse. This is psychopathic. Putting your dog in unreasonable danger. Abuser.” Justagirlwithideas added: “This looks so unsafe. You aren’t wearing your helmet and what happens if you crash or someone hits you… your dog can’t protect herself/himself. It’s your responsibility to do that. This is cute but I am worried about your dog.”
In a reply video, the social media star doubled down, using Britney Spears’ ‘Oops!…I did it again’ to hit back at the comments…
Sam Bennett wins sprint stage at UAE Tour
Sam Bennett claims his 50th career win at @uae_tour stage 4!! pic.twitter.com/KnO4HZ3GtU
— Cycling Ireland (@CyclingIreland) February 24, 2021
Excuse the late UAE Tour update. I was out on the roads this lunchtime riding considerably slower than today’s stage winner Sam Bennett. The Irishman bagged his first of the season from a bunch sprint ahead of Jumbo-Visma’s David Dekker and Lotto Soudal’s Caleb Ewan. It was a much quieter day in the saddle for the peloton compared to Sunday’s sprint stage with no crosswind dramas. Hopefully, RTÉ will pick up on Bennett’s victory. On Monday the Irish broadcaster said Bennett went another stage without challenging. That stage was an individual time trial… Yesterday they said Bennett failed to pick up any points…It was a summit finish…I guess today it’ll be a shock win for Bennett in the sprint.
Just waiting for the RTE Sport Headline.
SAM BENNETT TAKES THE WIN ON STAGE 4 BUT STILL SITS 100TH ON GC AT UAE TOUR pic.twitter.com/JuNkvyZFTF
— Tara Bennett (@Tee4Tara) February 24, 2021
Count down the days: Cycling Time Trials back in action on March 29
Some good news on the horizon for any competitive types reading this. Cycling Time Trials are resuming their Type A (open) and Type B (club) events in England on 29 March, barring any changes to the government roadmap of course. For full info on what the roadmap means for cycling, check out our comprehensive review of Boris Johnson’s announcement…
Appeal to find stolen van
Mick Ives’ van was stolen from the driveway of his house some time between 11:45am and 7pm on Sunday February 21. Mick uses the van to support Coventry cycling team, Team Jewson M.I.Racing and it has Jewson branding on both sides. It’s a blue Ford transit 350L with registration plate BL67 BZY. Any sightings or information should be directed to Warwickshire Police on 02476 483432 quoting the crime investigation number 23/6355/21.
Anti-LTN Tory accused of hypocrisy over support for al fresco dining scheme
My head hurts. pic.twitter.com/gwXCGNT3lQ
— Jon Burke (@jonburkeUK) February 24, 2021
Tony Devenish made a name for himself on this site before Christmas when he stood on Kensington High Street to film a video with Conservative MP Felicity Buchan calling for the bike lane is ripped out. The London Assembly Member for Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster has also raised concerns about LTNs in the past and shared an article claiming that the schemes direct traffic from affluent areas to poorer neighbourhoods.
Today he has been accused of hypocrisy for praising Westminster Council’s announcement that they’ll be running an al fresco dining scheme from April 12. The scheme will allow businesses to move seating and tables into closed roads to continue to serve customers throughout the summer months.
Adam Tranter suggested “the manufactured culture war appears to have a hidden clause that you can close roads for eating.”
Mmmnn, Tony Devenish seems to just hate families who want to cycle safely in the street, but not those who want to eat and drink in the streets…. https://t.co/M5MjKORXkA
— Peter Smith (@Pinarello_Pete) February 24, 2021
Giro d'Italia route announced
🔜Giro d’Italia 2021 08-30/05❗
🚴Here the Route of the #Giro d’Italia 104! | 🚴 Ecco il percorso del #Giro 104! pic.twitter.com/kzwuRxQVEP— Giro d’Italia (@giroditalia) February 24, 2021
After several flase starts, the Giro d’Italia route has been released. Eyes were immediately drawn to another summit finish at the fearsome Zoncolan and a mountain stage featuring gravel roads and a finish up a ski slope…Insert jokes about Primož Roglič…
The route stays in the north and centre of Italy, avoiding the south completely and has the usual foray into the high mountains. After an opening day TT in Turin, stage six sees the first summit finish of the race. There are more gravel roads on stage 11, before the Zoncolan comes on stage 14. Stage 15 takes the riders out of Italy for a day of racing in neighbouring Slovenia ahead of the first of two stages in the final week at serious altitude.
Stage 16 takes in the triple-header of Passo Fedaia, Pordoi and Giau, all north of 2,000m. The race ends with a battle royale mountain stage before one final time trial in Milan. Roll on May…
🔜Giro d’Italia 2021 08-30/05❗
🚴Here the Route of the #Giro d’Italia 104! | 🚴 Ecco il percorso del #Giro 104! pic.twitter.com/cco6AEOE2L— Giro d’Italia (@giroditalia) February 24, 2021
Teams revealed for inaugural women's Paris-Roubaix
⭐ Team Selection #ParisRoubaix Femmes 🚴♀️
😈 Here are the 24 teams that will take to the start-line of the 1st edition of #ParisRoubaix Femmes!
😈 Voici les 24 équipes qui prendront le départ de la 1ère édition de #ParisRoubaix Femmes ! pic.twitter.com/O7OrsU3vaL
— Paris-Roubaix (@Paris_Roubaix) February 24, 2021
24 February 2021, 08:49
24 February 2021, 08:49
24 February 2021, 08:49
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
74 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@Backladder Oh I think I can guess - the nearest indoor velodrome to road.cc HQ looks to be some distance away in Wales, whereas Odd Down Cycle Track (where this test was conducted) is just 2 miles away.
There are a number of causes of "the divide between motorists and cyclists". Only one is to do with the technology (of bicycles and cars) and that's the nature of the car, which is designed to induce the sort of dangerous and careless behaviours that providing humans with a lot of power and glamour fetches out of us. Other causes are much more insidious - A culture of hyper-individualism bordering on solipsism, with violently ultra-selfish and aggressive anti-heroes being promoted in every mass media channel as the ideal. A "news" media that overwhelmingly seeks, creates and offers pariahs and scapegoats to the rabid individualists, which pariahs and scapegoats includes all kinds of those perceived as less powerful and therefore easy victims, including cyclists. The near complete lack of any curb upon the dangerous antics of vast numbers of media-maddened motorists by the forces of law and order, many of whom are actually members themselves of the mass media maddened motorist ilk. ******** No amount of a more rational discourse about active travel or the means of making it safer will change these root causes of the vast numbers of deaths and maiming due to inept, incompetent and deliberately violent antics of vast numbers of motorists allowed their dangerous "weapons of choice". Yet many other highly damaging aspects of modern societies would be solved by a much more effective curbing of mass media mob-building and goading along with a serious attempt to prevent motorists and a whole range of other damagers from behaving as badly as so many do. It'll not happen, of course. Large and powerful elements of the modern world obtain far too much ultra-riches and power from current conditions for them to allow any significant change. And vast numbers of the population have long had their minds, attitudes and behaviours captured and directed by various oligarchical monsters and their mass media propaganda horns. About the only chance of safe active travel becoming extant is for the population at large to become mostly too poor to afford a car, ironically one other likely outcome of the machinations of those same power and money-mad monsters that have created the car-issue in the first place. Their need for zero-sum socio-economic arrangements degrades everything, including the wallet-contents of the masses.
@Astralstroll The hierarchy of road users does not mean priority of road users except in certain circumstances, e.g. stopping to let pedestrians cross junctions before turning. It doesn't mean that cyclists have priority over motor vehicles at all times any more than the pedestrians have priority over cyclists at all times. It certainly doesn't mean that you have priority in the circumstances you describe; personally, unless the driver is being a complete dick, on a narrow country lane I accept that it is easier for me to turn around and go back to the nearest passing place, which is never that far if you're on a bike, than for a tractor or other large vehicle to reverse back down the road for my benefit.
If you were spending that much money on the device the obvious thing to do is to book a couple of hours in a velodrome for testing in a stable environment, I can't understand why Road.cc tried to do it outdoors.
@chrisonabike 'Minimisation' please!
@Astralstroll The Hierarchy of Road Users, announced with great fanfares in 2022, has been rendered into complete fiction by the attitude of the police: there is this hierarchy/ priority list but we don't take it seriously and if drivers ignore it we don't care! The same applies to the ludicrous notice of close-passing - No KSI'd cyclist = No Offence ttps://upride.cc/incident/lwa190_minicooper_hierarchy/
Hope Barcelona keep the transport improvements (they've been making for a while) coming! Better streets, more infra to help active travel where necessary. And while it's a major investment (though can be lower operating cost than busses) maybe more trams where they can. That may be more effective in making places active travel friendly and replacing taxis than mass public bike hire. They've a good start with 6 lines already.
I think this is a positive story. They're not getting rid of public hire bikes - they're expanding their in-house one. They're merely kicking out cowboys who've shown they've a lack of interest in the game they claim to be playing. It seems logical that companies whose business model is to extract (venture capital) money by invading public space are even less likely to make the efforts to keep things in order than a local "in house" scheme. (After all the "bikes and riding" part of these schemes always *costs* money, they don't generate it.) So not surprising their experience shows those firms are not particularly motivated to follow the rules - especially when scrapping for "market share". It's nice the European Cyclists’ Federation is thinking about tourists also (i hesitate to say "follow the money...") - as they note, where it's safe to cycle locals will largely get their own bikes. Tourists aren't going to stop coming because lack of public bike share - I think this is mostly a "nice to have" ("hey - why don't we go on one of those bikes there? ").
Harm minimization - at least they're not driving...
I'll counter that by saying the Bryton 750se I have drives me nuts at times. Inconsistantly picks up on routes created on Komoot and the app re-syncs every few seconds when trying to set up the device and sends me back to the home screen. The most infuriating one is that I turned live track on. Once. It now won't turn off and repeatedly flags up the live track is starting, and then disconnecting every few seconds whilst riding. I haven't timed it but it wouldn't suprise me if 10-20% of the time the the screen is covered with an error message. That's been about 6 weeks now. Other than that it's great :/
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”
Re:Vine/Taxi
Re:Vine/Taxi
I can’t even bear to look at twitter for fear of the ignorant comments
Captain Badger wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Awavey wrote:
“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!”
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.
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.
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.)
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).
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.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
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.
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?
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.
Miller wrote:
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.
eburtthebike wrote:
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.
Rendel Harris wrote:
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.
hawkinspeter 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 wrote:
You can get militant atheists that decry theists, so maybe Burt is just a militant helmet-atheist.
Rendel Harris wrote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
Miller 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.
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.
Rendel Harris wrote:
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.”
eburtthebike wrote:
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.
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.
wtjs wrote:
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.
wycombewheeler wrote:
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.
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.
ktache wrote:
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:
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.
wycombewheeler wrote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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…
ktache wrote:
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?
Rendel Harris wrote:
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:
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.
Mungecrundle wrote:
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.
Crazyhorse wrote:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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]
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]
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
That is clearly a paraplegic
That is clearly a paraplegic Wookiee with its support human, I applaude its passion to stay active.
Quote:
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.
mdavidford wrote:
And it’s DOOR mirrors, FFS!
Captain Badger wrote:
Yeah – OK – so I just wanted to give everyone the mental image of the peloton attempting to struggle up a ski jump.
mdavidford wrote:
Yeah I know, just being me, sorry couldn’t resist