Live blog: Pass-agg van stickers (we prefer ours); Richard Carapaz fails to secure visa for Tour of Britain; Telegraph takes firm position on whether cycle helmets should be mandatory; pass-agg van stickers + more

brooksby wrote:

Interesting, slightly OT article about US football in the Grauniad:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/06/helmets-dont-eliminate-concussions-its-time-for-the-nfl-to-ditch-them

Quote:

The biggest misconception about football helmets is that they prevent concussions. They don’t. Helmets protect the skull. Concussions are caused when the brain moves inside the skull; helmets do little if anything to prevent the brain from rattling inside the skull. Helmets are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

That's overly simplistic as far as protective qualities are concerned - as are many helmet designs - but is more to do with the use of the helmet, and increased strikes due to a perceived safety aspect, in the NFL.. that is different to their stituation in cycling, even considering risk compensation.

Most helmets are designed to reduce the linear acceleration during a collision, the acceleration is correlated to cranial injuries hence reducing it *may* help in reducing the severity of such an injury including - possibly - concussions. It's also been known for a long time that rotational accelerations can be heavily implicated in concussions and other brain injuries (seen years ago, for example, in the military with glancing impacts from bullets) - this is one of the reasons for interest in technologies such as MIPS. For some generally interesting details on TBIs this might be worth looking at for some (there's plenty more information out there obviously...)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979340/

brooksby wrote:

Interesting, slightly OT article about US football in the Grauniad:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/06/helmets-dont-eliminate-concussions-its-time-for-the-nfl-to-ditch-them

Quote:

The biggest misconception about football helmets is that they prevent concussions. They don’t. Helmets protect the skull. Concussions are caused when the brain moves inside the skull; helmets do little if anything to prevent the brain from rattling inside the skull. Helmets are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Yes I saw that today but thought that sums up perfectly what I've been trying to tell people about concussions in these cycle helmet debates for years now.

Awavey wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Interesting, slightly OT article about US football in the Grauniad:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/06/helmets-dont-eliminate-concussions-its-time-for-the-nfl-to-ditch-them

Quote:

The biggest misconception about football helmets is that they prevent concussions. They don’t. Helmets protect the skull. Concussions are caused when the brain moves inside the skull; helmets do little if anything to prevent the brain from rattling inside the skull. Helmets are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Yes I saw that today but thought that sums up perfectly what I've been trying to tell people about concussions in these cycle helmet debates for years now.

I do think this is misrepresented.  Helmets aren't going to stop concussion - as I am currently suffering from post-concussion syndrome following a bike crash, I can vouch for that.  However, the helmet did mean the percussive injury (which was enough to crack my helmet in two) was taken by the helmet, preventing my skull from taking it and leaking brain all over the road.  

Helmets may not stop concussion, but they have a role in reducing death and life changing injury.

cjf82 wrote:

Awavey wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Interesting, slightly OT article about US football in the Grauniad:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/06/helmets-dont-eliminate-concussions-its-time-for-the-nfl-to-ditch-them

Quote:

The biggest misconception about football helmets is that they prevent concussions. They don’t. Helmets protect the skull. Concussions are caused when the brain moves inside the skull; helmets do little if anything to prevent the brain from rattling inside the skull. Helmets are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Yes I saw that today but thought that sums up perfectly what I've been trying to tell people about concussions in these cycle helmet debates for years now.

I do think this is misrepresented.  Helmets aren't going to stop concussion - as I am currently suffering from post-concussion syndrome following a bike crash, I can vouch for that.  However, the helmet did mean the percussive injury (which was enough to crack my helmet in two) was taken by the helmet, preventing my skull from taking it and leaking brain all over the road.  

 

Helmets may not stop concussion, but they have a role in reducing death and life changing injury.

Your helmet failed badly if it split in two.  The other thing to consider is that in many cases your head may not have even the contacted the ground at all if it had not been massively bigger due to a helmet.  They are not always going to make an crash better. 

ktache wrote:

BtBS is still away.  That has tended to lower the volume of the "debate" somewhat.

Waitrose gives me a free Telegraph every so often, I do have to explain that I will never read it, so nasty, but there is something about a broadsheet for putting under the bicycles for storage and cleaning.  The tabloid size is just not as effective.  Even the Guardians attemp at the parisian size didn't work, I very much missed the broadsheet Indy.

I do understand that I am contributing to their numbers and therefore ad revenue, but I need a cleanish floor, better half and her tolerance of my habit and all that.

The free Telegraph is always handy if you run out of toilet paper.

Rich_cb wrote:

Some of you are seriously lacking in a sense of humour.

...said Jeremy Clarkson 

Rich_cb wrote:

The highway code thing is a joke. Some of you are seriously lacking in a sense of humour.

Yeah. Getting knocked over by someone who has just passed you turning left across your path in broad daylight tends to blunt your sense of humour. As does drivers driving straight towards you on narrow country roads, then shouting at you and calling you a 'cunt' for being 'in their way'. As does having a porsche overtake your club ride on a blind corner, approaching a bridge. As does having a milkshake thrown at you from a passing car. As does visiting your mate in hospital with a broken hip and shoulder blade after being knocked off by a white van driver, who then drove off. All in the space of three months. Funny that.

Zebulebu wrote:

Yeah. Getting knocked over by someone who has just passed you turning left across your path in broad daylight tends to blunt your sense of humour. As does drivers driving straight towards you on narrow country roads, then shouting at you and calling you a 'cunt' for being 'in their way'. As does having a porsche overtake your club ride on a blind corner, approaching a bridge. As does having a milkshake thrown at you from a passing car. As does visiting your mate in hospital with a broken hip and shoulder blade after being knocked off by a white van driver, who then drove off. Funny that.

And that stream of anecdotes makes the joke on the van wrong why?

It's poking fun at some cyclists, just as their other stickers appear to be poking fun at other road users.

Lighten up.

Rich_cb wrote:

Zebulebu wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

The highway code thing is a joke. Some of you are seriously lacking in a sense of humour.

Yeah. Getting knocked over by someone who has just passed you turning left across your path in broad daylight tends to blunt your sense of humour. As does drivers driving straight towards you on narrow country roads, then shouting at you and calling you a 'cunt' for being 'in their way'. As does having a porsche overtake your club ride on a blind corner, approaching a bridge. As does having a milkshake thrown at you from a passing car. As does visiting your mate in hospital with a broken hip and shoulder blade after being knocked off by a white van driver, who then drove off. Funny that.

And that stream of anecdotes makes the joke on the van wrong why? It's poking fun at some cyclists, just as their other stickers appear to be poking fun at other road users. Lighten up.

The state of road use in this country is not really a laughing matter, is it...

vonhelmet wrote:

The state of road use in this country is not really a laughing matter, is it...

I suggest you never go to a comedy club anywhere, ever, if you think that the state of the roads is an offensive topic for a joke.

Rich_cb wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

The state of road use in this country is not really a laughing matter, is it...

 

I suggest you never go to a comedy club anywhere, ever, if you think that the state of the roads is an offensive topic for a joke.

Comedy is for micro and macro-aggresive transphobic fascist bigots. All we have left is the gentle comedy of a dog sliding on an icy pond or a cyclist being egged.

Rich_cb wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

The state of road use in this country is not really a laughing matter, is it...

I suggest you never go to a comedy club anywhere, ever, if you think that the state of the roads is an offensive topic for a joke.

Oh do fuck off dear.

vonhelmet wrote:

Oh do fuck off dear.

Careful, you might offend someone.

Rich_cb wrote:

Zebulebu wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

The highway code thing is a joke. Some of you are seriously lacking in a sense of humour.

Yeah. Getting knocked over by someone who has just passed you turning left across your path in broad daylight tends to blunt your sense of humour. As does drivers driving straight towards you on narrow country roads, then shouting at you and calling you a 'cunt' for being 'in their way'. As does having a porsche overtake your club ride on a blind corner, approaching a bridge. As does having a milkshake thrown at you from a passing car. As does visiting your mate in hospital with a broken hip and shoulder blade after being knocked off by a white van driver, who then drove off. Funny that.

And that stream of anecdotes makes the joke on the van wrong why? It's poking fun at some cyclists, just as their other stickers appear to be poking fun at other road users. Lighten up.

Because these aren't 'anecodtes'. They are reports of fact, based on my last three months of riding. And until the issue of cyclists being abused, seriously injured and killed is taken seriously, 'having a laugh' about it isn't particularly fucking funny.

Zebulebu wrote:

 

Because these aren't 'anecodtes'. They are reports of fact, based on my last three months of riding. And until the issue of cyclists being abused, seriously injured and killed is taken seriously, 'having a laugh' about it isn't particularly fucking funny.

Firstly, look up the definition of anecdote.

Secondly, the joke isn't about cyclists getting killed etc it's about the highway code and the frequent quoting of it by cyclists.

It's a gentle joke aimed at a particular type of cyclist, seemingly over represented on this forum.

Rich_cb wrote:

Zebulebu wrote:

 

Because these aren't 'anecodtes'. They are reports of fact, based on my last three months of riding. And until the issue of cyclists being abused, seriously injured and killed is taken seriously, 'having a laugh' about it isn't particularly fucking funny.

Firstly, look up the definition of anecdote.

Secondly, the joke isn't about cyclists getting killed etc it's about the highway code and the frequent quoting of it by cyclists.

It's a gentle joke aimed at a particular type of cyclist, seemingly over represented on this forum.

You didn't use 'anecdote' in the literal sense of the word. You used it in the context it's often used - as an inferior comparator to empirical evidence. In that context, these are not 'anecdotes' - they are 'statements', supporting a factual proposition, which is - poking fun at cyclists quoting the Highway Code whilst hundreds are maimed and killed every year is not funny.

Zebulebu wrote:

You didn't use 'anecdote' in the literal sense of the word. You used it in the context it's often used - as an inferior comparator to empirical evidence. In that context, these are not 'anecdotes' - they are 'statements', supporting a factual proposition, which is - poking fun at cyclists quoting the Highway Code whilst hundreds are maimed and killed every year is not funny.

So now you're a mind reader as well.

You might not find it funny, did I?

Rich_cb wrote:

Zebulebu wrote:

You didn't use 'anecdote' in the literal sense of the word. You used it in the context it's often used - as an inferior comparator to empirical evidence. In that context, these are not 'anecdotes' - they are 'statements', supporting a factual proposition, which is - poking fun at cyclists quoting the Highway Code whilst hundreds are maimed and killed every year is not funny.

So now you're a mind reader as well.

You might not find it funny, did I?

Whereas you know exactly why the sticker is there.

Why don't you stop digging as you show no sympathy for those injured by van drivers.

hirsute wrote:

Whereas you know exactly why the sticker is there.

Why don't you stop digging as you show no sympathy for those injured by van drivers.

Point out the post where I showed a lack of sympathy?

Rich_cb wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Whereas you know exactly why the sticker is there.

Why don't you stop digging as you show no sympathy for those injured by van drivers.

Point out the post where I showed a lack of sympathy?

Your second post.
For all your bluster about mind reading, you went on to say 'I deduced'.
Stop digging.

hirsute wrote:

Your second post.
For all your bluster about mind reading, you went on to say 'I deduced'.
Stop digging.

Firstly, look up the meaning of deduce.

Secondly, I didn't show a lack of sympathy I simply asked why those anecdotes had any relevance?

The sticker doesn't insult cyclists, it doesn't threaten them or victim blame, it just pokes a little fun.

Their other vans poke fun at other road users so they're not even specifically targeting cyclists.

The desperate desire to be offended on this thread is nothing short of pathetic.

Stop digging and get a sense of humour.

Rich_cb wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Your second post. For all your bluster about mind reading, you went on to say 'I deduced'. Stop digging.

Firstly, look up the meaning of deduce. Secondly, I didn't show a lack of sympathy I simply asked why those anecdotes had any relevance? The sticker doesn't insult cyclists, it doesn't threaten them or victim blame, it just pokes a little fun. Their other vans poke fun at other road users so they're not even specifically targeting cyclists. The desperate desire to be offended on this thread is nothing short of pathetic. Stop digging and get a sense of humour.

It's one of those irregular verbs then. I deduce, you guess, he uses mindreading.

You replied to someone who had related incidents which had lead to a serious injury with 'lighten up' and showed no sympathy.

If you had read properly what people have said on this article, you wouldn't be glibly telling us all to get a sense of humour.

hirsute wrote:

It's one of those irregular verbs then. I deduce, you guess, he uses mindreading.

You replied to someone who had related incidents which had lead to a serious injury with 'lighten up' and showed no sympathy.

If you had read properly what people have said on this article, you wouldn't be glibly telling us all to get a sense of humour.

The other poster told me why I had used a word and that I had deliberately used it in a non-literal way despite the fact that using its literal meaning made perfect sense and was entirely appropriate. That's not a deduction as it doesn't follow any logic.

Looking at the van sign in the context of the signs on the other vans the logical conclusion is that is it an attempt at humour and that it concerns cyclists and the highway code. Hence a deduction.

We all have anecdotes about poor driving on the roads.

Why is that relevant to a joke? Are van drivers not allowed to make jokes because some van drivers drive poorly? Does that extend to cyclists? Pedestrians? Any other group you can think of?

Rich_cb wrote:

The other poster told me why I had used a word and that I had deliberately used it in a non-literal way despite the fact that using its literal meaning made perfect sense and was entirely appropriate.

That was your third post not your second.

Never mind, you clearly don't understand why people have responded in the way they have.

hirsute wrote:

That was your third post not your second.

Never mind, you clearly don't understand why people have responded in the way they have.

Many drivers are dangerous, some deliberately so. Anyone that rides regularly on our roads will have anecdotes galore regarding dangerous driving.

That does not make every driver culpable and it shouldn't preclude every driver from making light-hearted jokes even if they are at our expense.

A lot of the comments on here look like Liam Neeson style collective responsibility.

Is there another reason for getting annoyed at this joke?