Footage of a cyclist in London, riding with their pet cat in the bike’s basket, has gone viral online, the video showing the moment the pair were knocked off their bike by a moped rider, only for advice from a police officer pulling up at the scene in an unmarked car with blue lights flashing recommending the cyclist wears a helmet.
Travis Nelson and his feline passenger Sigrid, a deaf Norwegian Forest cat, have become something of an internet sensation, the Londoner sharing videos of the pair exploring the English capital by bike. Travis has been a guest on the road.cc Podcast, the double-act having more than 150,000 followers on Instagram and more than 21 million likes on TikTok.
> Meet Travis the human and Sigrid the cat, the viral sensations who have just switched to an e-bike
The pair’s most recent video has been viewed more than 2.4 million times on X, the social media platform formerly called Twitter, and captured the moment an “impatient, close passing moped driver knocked us off our bike” in London on Monday.
Impatient, close passing moped driver knocked us off our bike today. Fortunately the police (?) were right behind us, so they could scold me for not wearing a helmet and then leave. First time off my bike since 2007.
Sigrid is fine; my knee is messed up, can’t ride for a bit. pic.twitter.com/LdAESnSXnO
— Travis and Sigrid (@sigirides) November 13, 2023
The crash footage is shocking enough, with Sigrid falling from the HumanForest hire bike’s basket towards the moped. All involved were thankfully uninjured, aside from a “bruised up butt cheek and aching knee”, Travis tells us.
In the aftermath of the collision, an unmarked vehicle with blue flashing lights stopped at the scene. A woman, later confirmed by the Met to be a police officer, got out to first check everyone was okay, but then advised Travis to wear a helmet when cycling.
“You’ve not got a helmet on,” the plain-clothes officer said. “I recommend wearing a helmet.”
Travis later told his social media followers, “If anyone can fill me on how a helmet would have prevent this motorist from driving into me, I’d love to hear it.”
Recalling the possible police advice given at the scene of the incident on Clerkenwell Road near Old Street, Travis told road.cc: “She asked if I was ok, asked if I was sure, then said the helmet thing. She didn’t mention being police or anything (that’s why I had the question mark in my post)… but they had the blue lights.”

Responding to road.cc’s request for clarification on the vehicle and the police’s role following the incident, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police confirmed that officers in an unmarked car had indeed stopped at the scene of the collision, offering medical assistance and creating a police incident report.
However, the Met also claimed that both parties involved in the collision told the officers that they did not wish to report the matter to the police.
“Police are aware of a road traffic collision that occurred at around 13.45hrs on Monday, 13 November in Clerkenwell Road EC1. A moped was in collision with a bicycle,” the Met spokesperson told road.cc.
“An unmarked police car was passing the scene during the aftermath of the collision and stopped at the scene.
“Blue lights were utilised to ensure the safety of all road users and an officer offered medical assistance. This was declined by both parties – with no injuries disclosed.
“Neither party indicated a wish to report the matter and a police incident report was created. Road safety advice was given to both parties, who then left the scene. Should any of the parties involved wish to report any concerns to police we would encourage them to do so.”
The spokesperson continued: “Police are aware of video footage of the collision and interactions afterwards circulating on social media platforms. It should be noted that this footage is heavily edited.
“All road users should be mindful and abide by the Highway Code and Road Traffic Act and consider the space needed for themselves and other road users when using London roads.”
> Government shuts down mandatory cycling helmets question from Conservative MP
It is Travis’ first time off his bike since 2007, but fortunately “Sigrid is fine; my knee is messed up, can’t ride for a bit”.
“This is exactly why I don’t like to stop for red lights,” he wrote on social media. “Inattentive or impatient motorists frequently hit cyclists when the light turns green. Note also, I was in an ASL (Advanced Stop Line), meant to prevent exactly this kind of negligence.”
This image is seared into my brain. At this moment the only thing going through my mind was “please don’t go under the tires”. pic.twitter.com/iGM4wm9AGO
— Travis and Sigrid (@sigirides) November 13, 2023
Speaking to our sister website e-bike tips back in September, Travis explained how Sigrid usually travels in a unique set-up, with a specially designed pet basket which attaches to the bars of Travis’ bike, a fixed gear track bike built for street riding, and even occasionally wears goggles specifically designed for pets.
At the time of Monday’s incident however, he was using one of HumanForest’s hire bikes.

Explaining their usual set-up, Travis told ebiketips: “The basket is a Doggy Shopper by Klickfix Rixen & Kaul. They were the first sponsor we ever had and sent us their top-of-the-line basket to replace my cheap Amazon one. Over the past couple years I’ve customised it quite a bit to suit our particular needs.”





-1024x680.jpg)

















130 thoughts on “‘Police’ scold cyclist riding with pet cat in basket for not wearing a helmet after moped rider knocks them off bike”
I can’t really get into the
I can’t really get into the helmet zealotry of this guy, don’t wear one if you don’t want but don’t complain if someone recommends it after you have an accident
What really needs to be cleared up is if the police officers bothered to get the details of the moped that caused the accidents as clearly they witnessed what happened
lukei1 wrote:
You might want to check the definition of zealotry in the dictionary, I think you have it wrong.
Boopop wrote:
You might want to check the definition of zealotry in the dictionary, I think you have it wrong.— lukei1
anti-helmet zealotrr
lukei1 might also want to
lukei1 might also want to check the definition of accident. this wasn’t an accident. this was the clear result of careless/inconsiderate driving.
.
.
No, no. I’m off to check the definition of ‘definition’.
.
lukei1 wrote:
I wouldn’t claim that he had an “accident” – the moped rider caused a collision by presumably not actually looking where they were going. A helmet provides absolutely no way of preventing collisions (some research suggests that they can provoke collisions as drivers consider the wearers to be better protected and thus can be close-passed).
You say “don’t wear one if you don’t want”, but when you get police, ambulance workers, medical staff, other cyclists and drivers bullying cyclists who choose to not wear one, then it’s not really an option unless you enjoy being abused. It’s quite simply victim blaming and the police should at least attempt to do their job with regards to unsafe traffic.
I wish that the media and other people would just stop banging on about helmets. It pollutes the discussion about road danger and how best to protect vulnerable road users. Considering that it’s slightly safer to cycle for 1km than it is to walk 1km, it’s bizarre that only cyclists are considered appropriate targets for this kind of bullying.
lukei1 wrote:
Maybe don’t recommend one to someone after they just had a crash which injured their knee.
Should have recommended they
Should have recommended they wear knee pads instead ?
Sounds as if the lady is
Sounds as if the lady is simply stating her own opinion in a friendly manner, she’s not telling him off for not wearing a helmet, saying that anything is his fault for not wearing a helmet or claiming that wearing a helmet would’ve prevented the crash. Mr Nelson appears to be making a very large mountain of a very small molehill. Personally I’m a lot less concerned about him not wearing a helmet and a lot more worried about the safety of Sigrid, his own photograph shows just how close she came to being mutilated or killed; I personally wouldn’t risk the safety of any of my three much-loved little blighters on a bike in London traffic for a second, however many TikTok likes it got me.
I agree. All cyclists are
I agree. All cyclists are allowed to do as they please, as it should be, but sometimes people go a bit far.
OK, I’ll bite: why are you
OK, I’ll bite: why are you using a picture of me lifted from YouTube as your avatar?
Rendel Harris wrote:
OMG – really??
Yep, it’s from the video of
Yep, it’s from the video of the end of my charity ride to which so many road.cc readers contributed so generously in December 2021!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIy8zdHuLP4
brooksby wrote:
Okay, that’s actually quite funny.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Is that what you look like!
Not quite sure what you’re
Not quite sure what you’re talking about. That’s a picture of me.
bigwheeler88 wrote:
Don’t play silly buggers mate, the link to my video is above, everyone can see you’re using my image – I’m not that bothered if that pleases you for some bizarre reason, I’m just wondering why?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Don’t play silly buggers mate, the link to my video is above, everyone can see you’re using my image – I’m not that bothered if that pleases you for some bizarre reason, I’m just wondering why?— bigwheeler88
Maybe all road.cc new members automatically get a “Rendel Harris Lookalike Avatar” as standard as this is your personal community?
I’m not playing mate. I’ve
I’m not playing mate. I’ve shaved since I took the pic but I don’t think it takes much these days to be a bald bloke with a beard.
bigwheeler88 wrote:
What a very peculiar person – just for the amusement of sane people, here is the avatar you’re using next to a screenshot of my video; absolutely I’m not the only bald bloke with a beard but it’s a bit odd that you’re wearing my headband and my top as well…
I can see the resemblance,
I can see the resemblance, but my profile picture is definitely a picture of me. Good job on the charity bike ride though!
Interesting to see lookalikes
Interesting to see lookalikes who both appear to wear t-shirts under their bike jerseys. Is that a UK thing?
cmedred wrote:
It’s a sleeveless baselayer – wicks the sweat away quicker. You see quite a few pros wearing them (though I’m as far away from pro as it’s possible to be). Weird that BW88 is even wearing the same Planet X one as mine eh?
.
LOL! Keep it up. Please.
.
.
LOL! Keep it up. Please.
.
Rendel Harris wrote:
What a very peculiar person – just for the amusement of sane people, here is the avatar you’re using next to a screenshot of my video; absolutely I’m not the only bald bloke with a beard but it’s a bit odd that you’re wearing my headband and my top as well…— bigwheeler88
Ok, the problem I have now is you look nothing like I expected! In my mind you had white hair and a much bigger beard.
What else am I wrong about? Does reality even exist?
andystow wrote:
I’ll get back to you on that one…
.
.
Whilst in my mind, he had a white beard and much bigger hair!
.
andystow wrote:
You thought he was Father Christmas ?
Mr Hoopdriver wrote:
Mr. Natural?
Looks more like Ledner Sirrah
Looks more like Ledner Sirrah to me….
HoldingOn wrote:
You’re confusing them with Rendell Harris!
I believe Perce and Clem
I believe Perce and Clem Fandango also bear a remarkable similarity to each other.
SaveTheWail wrote:
Strange, other than perce popping up from time to time Clemmy seems to have done a runner.
Well if he’s anything like me
Well if he’s anything like me he’s probably reached his SFBSP.
perce wrote:
SFBSP ?
Spit for brains saturation
Spit for brains saturation point. Referring to a couple of trolls.
We now need someone on next
We now need someone on next to point out they’ve not just pinched your clothes (EDIT and your coiffage) but also your light fitting – and in fact your kitchen!
It’s like sci-fi world here on the internets, every day.
.
.
But you’ve already pointed it out!!
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
No I didn’t! That was someone bogus, using the same username as me!
So who’s on first?
So who’s on first?
Rendel Harris wrote:
TIMY / Ser Henri Lard, or one of the Nigels? Or is it Socrati/Martin, or just some other nutter? All the same?
EDIT – however – you do get to say to them “I will not communicate with you again. But it’s not you, it’s me…”
.
.
No, no. It’s not you, it’s deffo me.
.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yes
I’m Rendel Harris, and so’s
I’m Rendel Harris, and so’s my wife.
.
.
Oh boy. Please, not A NOTHER bogus name!
.
.
.
For somebody who is never bothered, you do come across as somewhat touchy and a smidgeon over-sensitive! (To say nothing of alluringly beardy).
.
PS – lurrrrrrve the sweatband!
.
Maybe HMHB have something to
Maybe HMHB have something to do with it…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAq3NF_Xlt8&pp=ygUQZ3ViYmEgbG9va2FsaWtlcw%3D%3D
Though it could have been :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55TyNkCAMBc
Ah, always glad of an excuse
Ah, always glad of an excuse to hear the Biscuits.
Agree with this. I’d also
Agree with this. I’d also like to know what else the officer said (if indeed they are a police officer) because the editing suggests that was a small part of a longer conversation.
Off cam, she complained that Trendy’s avatar didn’t do him justice.
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
This whole thread has to quite possibly be the best thing I’ve read on road.cc 😀
The moped rider should have
The moped rider should have stopped, the police could have been more diplomatic…but did the cyclist not ride off at an angle? If I had been cycling where the moped went I would have been calling for him to look to his right.
If the cyclist has assessed
If the cyclist has assessed that it’s safe for him to proceed, which he obviously has, then it’s fine. He’s in front of all other traffic and the highway code states others must give way to him, since he’s a vulnerable road user.
Oh jog on. He’s taken up a
Oh jog on. He’s taken up a position at the junction where he is clearly, obviously, definitely going to head right. The guy on the moped then squeezes past, on the right, through a restriction that was barely the width of his vehicle in the first place, two meters before an acre of empty tarmac opens up that would have allowed him to overtake as safely and easily as anyone could possibly desire. But somehow it was the cyclist’s fault for not seeing it coming?
Looks like the moped rider
Looks like the moped rider did stop otherwise they would have committed a greater offence. The police officer should have at least ensured that the moped rider gave his details in case of any damage/injury not noticed at the time and told them to report it on 101.
That’s the sense of the word
That’s the sense of the word priority: he’s in front so he has priority. Which is also the use of ASLs, to give cyclists priority und this protect them (somewhat) from motorised traffic. As the cyclist himself points out…
Statistically, more lives
Statistically, more lives would be saved by drivers and front seat passengers wearing crash helmets than if all cyclists wore them.
So in the interests of reducing serious injuries to herself the female officer should have been wearing a crash helmet whilst in the car.
And a hans device, should cut
And a hans device, should cut down on the whiplash claims and reduce the cost of insurance
A helmet would neither have
A helmet would neither have prevented the accident, nor would it have protected his knee.
Will the police be advising cyclists to wear knee pads from now on? And elbow pads? And back protectors? And chest protectors? And neck protectors? And… etc.
Idiocy.
And note that the police (if
And note that the police (if they were police) chose to spend their time lecturing the cyclist rather than setting off after the actual perpetrator of the offence.
I agree with your point,
I agree with your point, except it looks like the moped driver who caused the accident didn’t drive off? At least not immediately.
bikes wrote:
I trust that the police gave the moped rider a Stern Talking-to, then?
brooksby wrote:
I trust that the police gave the moped rider a Stern Talking-to, then?
— bikesNo. They were clearly wearing a helmet.
The officer only recomended
The officer only recomended the cyclist wear a helmet. To me that’s sound advice.
None of the officer’s
None of the officer’s business. Wearing a helmet has been proven time and time again to do nothing.
Nothing? Nothing at all? That
Nothing? Nothing at all? That is a bold statement.
Nothing? Really…..right…
Nothing? Really…..right….okay…..
Another roadcc numptie
Did the ‘officer’ comment at
Did the ‘officer’ comment at all on the person at fault? THAT’S terrible policing if they were an officer
Sound advice? Wonder if they
Sound advice? Wonder if they wpuld advise assault victims to buy face guards…
I would have preferred if she
I would have preferred if she focused on the moped driver who was 100% responsible for the collision. Maybe the moped driver has done this kind of thing hundreds of times with no consequences? Maybe he’s drunk / drugged?
Imagine you’d been burgled and you’re standing next to the burglar and the police, do you think the police should start with you?
bikes wrote:
Cop: “I hear you’ve been burgled – I recommend putting padlocks on all your expensive possessions”
Victim: “The burglar is standing there right next to you. Aren’t you going to do anything?”
Cop: “There’s nothing wrong with giving friendly advice”
Is there a mountain over that
Is there a mountain over that thar mole hill?
.
.
Yup, plenty a mole hills on this here site!
.
She’s right, and the guys is
She’s right, and the guys is an idiot for carring a cat on his bike, plus getting all bent out of shape from a very gently communicated bit of advice about protecting his head. I really don’t understand why so many UK riders are so anti-helmet, and even more sensitive about someone (shock) suggesting that instead of banging ones head off the asphalt, that a helmet may be a better idea. Reminds me of the anti-seatbelt drivers of the early 80’s. Maybe all the monetizing from his videos will afford him a safer way to carry his pet.
The rider banged his knee off
The rider banged his knee off the asphalt. A helmet wouldn’t have made a difference.
I assume you’ve never been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam? Lots and lots and lots of cyclists there, and I can’t recall ever seeing one wearing a helmet. Even the royals in both countries ride bicycles and in all the pics I’ve seen of them on two wheels, none has ever worn a helmet.
You assume wrong. I have been
You assume wrong. I have been to Amsterdam. I’m not attributing any injury to the fact he wasn’t wearing a helmet. I’m simply saying that UK riders are so triggered when it comes to any mention of wearing a helmet. I’m still pretty sure that head injuries are possible in the Netherlands. And I am pretty sure that a chunk of compressable foam and plastic between a Dutchmans skull and hard ground will result less injury than hitting the ground without that layer. The policewoman was polite and seemed caring. To be offended at the thought of her recommending a helmet is laughable. I imagine she has seen enough cracked heads to consider helmets recommendations important.
Explain how a helmet prevents
Explain how a helmet prevents a moped rider knocking them off?
How on earth would you even
How on earth would you even think that it could, lol? .. you’re missing the point of my statement. Perhaps read it again.
Calm down Clarkson, this is a
Calm down Clarkson, this is a cycling website. Have you tried motoring weakly?
Prefer to ride my bike thanks
Prefer to ride my bike thanks. But when I do drive, I motor strongly…
So the moped rider causes a
So the moped rider causes a crash by passing too close and then leaves the scene of an RTC without exchanging details. That’s two offences, and maybe up to 9 penalty points. And the officer meanwhile is concerned about a non offence of non helmet wearing by the cyclist, and which wouldn’t have prevented the crash and also wouldn’t have prevented the knee injury.
Great policing, not.
I’d put in a complaint abdout the poor policing as well as the crash. The moped rider’s licence plate should be identifiable.
I’ve watched this video many
I’ve watched this video many times now and it’s become quite clear to me that the bike rider is veering right and hits the moped rider
Then keep watching and
Then keep watching and eventually you’ll see you’re wrong. Positions to rhs of SINGLE LANE at lights. Moves right when lights change, cyclist not in the wrong at all
How do you position and move
How do you position and move at light when you’re turning right? ?
But in any case, there wasn’t sufficient space for moped to pass safely there even before the cyclist moved right, so they should not have been attempting to overtake at all
Wheelywheelygood wrote:
Not correct and irrelevant. Its on the moped rider to overtake safely , they were within the 1.5m recommended distance, and a right turn was entirely predictable. They failed to do so. Careless driving.
I’ve watched this video many
I’ve watched this video many times now and it’s become quite clear to me that the bike rider is veering right and hits the moped rider
I agree with SS that this is a stupid and incorrect judgement. The police, as you might expect, regularly display the same failure of cognition. When it’s a headcam, as opposed to the chestcam here, they frequently fail to understand that you cannot determine the position of the bike on the road from the video, because the appearance is dominated by movement of the head.
While I’m happy for helmets
While I’m happy for helmets to be personal choice, this is actually an example of a fall where a helmet had a significant probability of improving the outcome. From the video it is clear they had an uncontrolled fall, and that head ended up very close to the island kerb.
Useless against HGVs, cars and mopeds, but very useful against the ground and kerb.
So this is not a great video to argue that helmets would have made no difference. One of our wrinklies was a never helmeter until she was hospitalised pottering back from the shops and she took a tumble and was concussed from hitting her head on the kerb.
I was hospitalised back in 1980 cycling to work when I hit a patch of ice. One moment you are cycling, next second unconscious on the floor – agility not a factor. Ditto for daughter and the Sheffield tram lines.
As to the accident – first rule of cycling is you should always leave cyclists enough space to fall off. Cyclist was doing a perfectly predictable starting wobble – probably exacerbated by poor gear choice, but I would never rely on a cyclist to hold a line – the moped rider 100% at fault for neither respecting the 1.5m, and should have let the cyclist have time and space to move off. The passing vehicle has responsibility.
Yeah, his knee would be fine
Yeah, his knee would be fine
IanMSpencer wrote:
As he didn’t hit his head, I fail to see how a helmet would have improved the outcome at all.
I deliberately spoke about
I deliberately spoke about probabilities rather than the outcome of this specific event. All I am saying is that the fact that they happened not to hit their head in this instance was not by skill or design so it doesn’t make the case that they don’t help overall.
And, yes, you can argue that as they haven’t had a fall since 2007, that’s still a small probability. I’m more of a “small chance, high adverse outcome” sort of a guy. After all, hands up who can genuinely claim their seatbelt has saved their life but accept they are rightly mandated?
IanMSpencer wrote:
Despite the situation being that for which bike helmets are actually designed for, the outcome demonstrates that even then, a helmet is often unnecessary. If you saw a pedestrian fall over, would your first reaction be that a helmet would have protected their head, even if they didn’t hit their head?
I think you’re using an imagined scenario to try to give weight to bike helmet use when the facts actually demonstrate otherwise. It’s nonsensical.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Despite the situation being that for which bike helmets are actually designed for, the outcome demonstrates that even then, a helmet is often unnecessary. If you saw a pedestrian fall over, would your first reaction be that a helmet would have protected their head, even if they didn’t hit their head?
I think you’re using an imagined scenario to try to give weight to bike helmet use when the facts actually demonstrate otherwise. It’s nonsensical.— IanMSpencer
It’s not nonsensical, in that I’ve given my reasoning. Wearing a seatbelt will make no difference 99.99% of the miles you drive, even in an accident, but we accept that the result in a rare case offsets the minor irritation that wearing one.
All I am saying is don’t use this case to prove helmets are pointless. Nothing about the tumble was within the cyclist’s control, so the outcome was unpredictable and I am noting the factors that could easily have worked against it.
In part, one of the problems of falling is that your back or shoulder hits the ground and then you will instinctively resist your head hitting the ground. When a kerb is present, it makes it more likely that the head can be in contact with a hard surface before your body has absorbed the impact.
So I reiterate my point. Wearing a helmet is personal choice, but don’t take this one data point of outcome as an example to show that they are unnecessary.
IanMSpencer wrote:
My point is that this particular scenario doesn’t make a case for or against wearing bike helmets as there was no head contact. You could just as easily make the (nonsensical) point that a stab vest would have protected him against any knives that had been left on the road. Yes, stab vests aren’t useful for 99.99% of the miles you cycle, but you’d be glad to be wearing one in the rare case that you fall onto a knife or get mugged for your bike.
Now, I do wear a bike helmet, but I’m just sick of people bending all logic in an attempt to justify them.
Almost every single
Almost every single pedestrian who has died from a fall consequential to a collision with a cyclist would have lived had they been wearing a suitable helmet, or even perhaps, a well structured padded felt hat.
Robert Hardy wrote:
Quite possibly, but as it’s such a low probability event, it would be strange to campaign for pedestrian helmets based on that particular danger.
However, shower helmets would definitely be a good thing.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Quite possibly, but as it’s such a low probability event, it would be strange to campaign for pedestrian helmets based on that particular danger.
However, shower helmets would definitely be a good thing.— Robert Hardy
a low probability event, just like cycling traumatic brain injuries. 11 head injury deaths per billion km travelled (compares with 23 per billion km travelled for pedestrians)
But it certainly highlights a difference in approach
Pedestrian hit by car and dies – little response
Pedestrian hit by cyclist and dies – cyclists need controlling, they are dangerouns
Cyclist hit by car and dies – cyclists should wear helmets.
In all three the outcomes are similar and the benefits of helmets may equally apply, but as drivers and pedestrians are most people, then there is no call to impose restrictions on them, but cyclists are a minority group that can be pointed at and told they should be more careful.
Robert Hardy wrote:
felt hat like this?
Bloody outlaws! Wandering
Bloody outlaws! Wandering all over the
roadsforest paths on theirphoneshorns and getting in the way of yourbikehorse, thepoliceverderers should sort them out.EDIT – and they’re completely invisible in that Lincoln green…
IanMSpencer wrote:
Not me, but then I’ve looked at the evidence, and the evidence that seat belts save lives is similar to helmets: missing or deliberately misinterpreted.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Missing the point that if he’d worn a helmet, and the increased diameter of his head meant that it did hit the ground, the helmet zealots could claim that it saved his life: that’s the better outcome that the helmet zealots wanted.
eburtthebike wrote:
Yeah, it seems that when a cyclist hits their head whilst wearing a helmet, then it demonstrates how useful they are, even if the cyclist gets concussed (“it would have been worse without a helmet”) or worse. If a cyclist hits their head without a helmet, then that’s used to demonstrate how “lucky” the cyclist was that they didn’t injure themselves more as they didn’t have a helmet. And now, a cyclist doesn’t even hit their head and it’s somehow twisted into a justification for wearing helmets.
Agree, all my falls were at
Agree, all my falls were at approximately this superslow speed, where helmet may have touched ground.
The moped rider is both at blame for squeezing and not stopping which is even more disturbing.
The girl is a little disturbing for the “I know what is right” attitude after someone had crashed, even lightly.
I pretty much always wear a
I pretty much always wear a helmet.
But I feel bound to point out that your “wrinkly” friend is highly likely to have suffered concussion even with the helmet, as the helmet does not alter the speed with which your head moves or the level of deceleration when it hits a solid object, which is what actually causes the concussion
I’m inclined to accept that
I’m inclined to accept that point, (plenty of experience of concussed cyclists wearing helmets) but outcomes of kerbs and helmets are likely to be significantly(?) better than unprotected.
IanMSpencer wrote:
But not for pedestrians?
The trouble with falling from
The trouble with falling from a bike is that it is hard to control your fall with a bike between your legs. The last time I tripped was ballroom dancing where I stopped my partner from smacking her head falling backwards, them rolled myself. All pretty much instinctive.
Having said that, I decided it wasn’t appropriate to take a photo of the old gentleman in Frankfurt with Zimmer frame, bags of shopping and cycling helmet. And you may have seen those with severe epilepsy wearing head protection.
I’ve said this before, it is in the nature of how you fall off a bike that makes the argument for helmets, though again, it is a judgement call based on how likely it is as to whether you judge it appropriate. I’d argue, for example, that a step through cycle or Brompton is a lot easier to fall off safely than a road bike.
IanMSpencer wrote:
You really need to improve your cycling and ballroom dancing skills.
Falling and not landing on your head is a lot easier for most than you think it is.
You really need to improve
You really need to improve your cycling and ballroom dancing skills. Falling and not landing on your head is a lot easier for most than you think it is
I’m not convinced about this. I have had 3 falls (all not the fault of anybody else, due to unexpected ice) in the past 10 years. 2 of them fractured my helmet. You may argue that this is all caused by the absence of your cycling and falling skills, but I would disagree. The most recent , due to a sheet of ice right across a road which was taking a lot of weighty traffic, caused definite ‘concussion’ in that I don’t remember the moment of falling, and woke up seconds later by the side of the road with a very sore hip and shoulder. The skill I failed to demonstrate was a reluctance to cycle on a sunny Christmas Eve afternoon
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I think it gets harder when you make your head wider (by putting a helmet on it for example)
IanMSpencer wrote:
Yes, this is true. don’t think I’ve ever fallen where my head was anywhere near the kerb. Could be possible I guess on a left hand bend if the road is oily/icy
‘”This is exactly why I don’t
‘”This is exactly why I don’t like to stop for red lights,” he wrote on social media.’
‘Because I’m an antisocial prick only concerned for myself’ he should have added.
Sorry he got hit and all that, but having yet again narrowly avoided being hit by someone cycling through a red light at a pedestrian crossing (he was coming up the inside of a stationary bus), I’m not all that sorry.
I’ve never been hit as a cyclist by anyone behind me at a red light, but I have been hit by people cycling through junctions when my light was green. The closest times I’ve come to being rear-ended at traffic lights have all been from cyclists who weren’t expecting me to stop just because the lights were red.
Brauchsel wrote:
Its the same with me especially in Oxford, I stop at a red light and the only times ive been almost rear ended or abused has sadly been by other cyclists for stopping at a redlight or giving way to the right to traffic on a roundabout.
Get out of the way, Why have you stopped you idiot!
Not from motorists but from fellow cyclists, I also drive and my dogs as the law states travel in secure cages.
I ride a Pashley a strong cycle but i would never dream of travelling on it with an animal loose in a basket.
I” dont like to stop at red lights”! Tough its the law.
I cycle regularly through
I cycle regularly through central London and only once in 15 years have I had abuse / near miss from a cyclist at a red light. I would have to query if you’re inclined to gun it to the lights and slam the brakes on last minute if they change if you’re getting that experience regularly.
The closes I’ve come to being hit at lights has been:
– actually being rear ended, once by a taxi driver who had both hands off the wheel to get a chocolate bar unwrapped and into his gob (police somehow gave this NFA)
– driver who clipped my trailer at Euston junction. Probably actually partly my fault in retrospect, as I’d tried to squeeze through the inside to position ahead of the traffic, but there’s no bike box there. And I doubt he could actually see the trailer.
– left-hooked by a moped rider gunning it up Gray’s Inn Road from my right in the ASL box when I was going straight on
Your a bloody cunt
Your a bloody cunt
‘”This is exactly why I don’t
‘”This is exactly why I don’t like to stop for red lights,” he wrote on social media.’
Reread his words again. He said he doesn’t like to stop at red lights, not that he doesn’t stop.
The study was blunt in its
The study was blunt in its conclusions: “Women may be over-represented in (collisions with goods vehicles) because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents
Got to say – moped riders are
Got to say – moped riders are an effing menace. They hurtle around London at tremendous speeds. I never understand why the tabloids don’t target them for criticism rather than cyclists. The other thing they do (and I’ve seen this a thousand times) is they hurtle through LTNs and cycle lanes and cover their rear plate with their foot as they do so to avoid a camera fine. They simply bend their leg around the moped and their foot completely or partially covers the reg plate.
listening to the while clip,
listening to the while clip, there is a third voice, I suspect it is the moped rider ! He stayed at the scene and can be seen riding away at the same time as the cyclist (going straight on while the rider is going right)
Surely at the very least she should have gathered contact details from both involved.
Motor vehicle operators are
Motor vehicle operators are more respectable than cyclists. This is why cyclists must always be blamed.
Motor vehicle operators are
Motor vehicle operators are more respectable than cyclists. This is why cyclists must always be blamed
This ironic comment has been misunderstood!
Quote:
As opposed to “accidentally” switching off a bodycam…
I can imagine this is the
I can imagine this is the type of reporting that really hacks off police officers. The officer stops to make sure he is okay, is clearly concerned and rather pleasently says, “I recommend wearing a helmet”.
I also recommend wearing a helmet; but don’t give a sh1t if you don’t. She forgot to add the second part of the sentence, which was clearly a mistake.
How often do Police recomend
How often do Police recomend pedestrians involved in RTAs should wear helmets? how many car crash occupants are told they should wear a helmet?
You’d think that cyclists were getting head injuries once a month from the helmet clamour.
11.2 fatal head injuries per BILLION km cycled
Did she talk to the idiot on
Did she talk to the idiot on the moped, maybe recommend he doesn’t squeeze through gaps that aren’t there? Nope.
Desperately feeling the need
Desperately feeling the need to make a whataboutery comment.
The hypocracy of police
The hypocracy of police officer for lecturing the victim on safety whilst not wearing a hiviz while standing in the middle of a busy road
Sorry can’t let this one go.
Sorry can’t let this one go. The police have a difficult job to do. The car stopped with the blue lights on for safety, the female officer got out and checked that every one was OK, checked if any one wanted to make a complaint and just mentioned that she recommended wearing a helmet, something which, rightly or wrongly, many organisations and the highway code support. I think helmets are now compulsory for cycle races, presumably for good reason. I really can’t think how she could have handled it better.
PS It’s hypocrisy.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Yes, because racing is dangerous. same way formula 1 and rally drivers wear helmets, but granny driving her cat to the vet does not. Cyclist in question has not had a fall in over 10 years according to his video. And even in this case where actions of others caused a fall he still did not hit his head on the ground. So Helmet would have been zero benefit.
Having seen the incident the best piece of safety advice that could have been given is “When turning, don’t leave a gap on the side you are turning to big enough for a moped because crazy delivero/just eat/pizza delivery guy will go for any gap”
My motorbike test examiner nearly failed me for this, it’s a minor fault, he saw me do it twice then allowed extra left turns to give me the opportunity to fail, but I didn’t do it again. Always sticks with me. Instructor and examiner called it “sealing the corner”
To say a helmet would have
To say a helmet would have been zero benefit is the same argument for Lewis Hamilton not wearing one, because he hasn’t been involved in an accident where he needed one either.
30psi wrote:
But racing drivers are often involved in crashes that do require them, so it’s not really the same argument at all (you’d also have to reference a specific crash that Hamilton had for it to even be a related argument). People are expected to wear full face helmets for motor sport due to the inherent dangers, whereas there’s very little publicity given to getting ordinary motorists to wear helmets even though car inhabitants are at risk of head injury in crashes.