Anyone get one of those free helmets in London this morning?

artaxerxes

I am referring to the AA helmet giveaway today in Waterloo http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/news/aa-charity-cycle-helmet-giveaway.html.
If you did get one, do you get a choice of sizes?

vorsprung

Are they giving copies of the Highway Code to motorists too? I know that motorists prefer cyclists to be on the cycle path and wearing a helmet. I prefer motorists to be on the motorway and to know the Highway Code.

bdave262000

Maybe we should get CTC to hand out copies of the highway code to motorists.

kurako

*Sigh* Perhaps they should also give helmets out to pedestrians. They are frequently the victims of wrecklessly driven motor vehicles too.

notsoblue

Riding a Barclays branded hire bike is so dangerous, you now need to wear a AA branded helmet and urban camo cape?

Thats insulting...

stevec205gti

Maybe they should start handing out pills to miserable b******s to less them less grumpy - but I'm sure the OP is glad of your helpful input to his question

t4tomo

haven't seen a single one on my way in.

Maybe they should randomly wrap pedestrians in 3M branded bubble wrap to keep them safe too?

kurako

stevec205gti wrote:

Maybe they should start handing out pills to miserable b******s to less them less grumpy - but I'm sure the OP is glad of your helpful input to his question

Perhaps you could start by taking one yourself.

stevec205gti

Kurako wrote:

stevec205gti wrote:

Maybe they should start handing out pills to miserable b******s to less them less grumpy - but I'm sure the OP is glad of your helpful input to his question

Perhaps you could start by taking one yourself.

Nope - I just need some kind of grammar pills to make me stop missing words out of my posts

Cafewanda

Group hug!!!

kelsen

Pardon my lack of cynicism, but isn't this simply a campaign with good intentions (and a bit of advertising for the AA) to keep people safe and encourage more cycling? Surely that's a good thing? Yes, you can read all sorts of stuff into it - the dubious mertis of hi-viz, making helmets compulsory, Boris bikes are dangerous, drivers/peds need to take more responsibility - but perhaps, just perhaps, it's not as negative as we all think?

kurako

The sort of campagning the AA should really be getting involved in is stopping stuff like this happening..

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/860618-text ... randmother

Keisha Wall was with her mother, a driving instructor, when she lost control of her car and mounted the pavement.

meanredspider

Hey - if it helps get people who might not otherwise try a Boris Bike get on one, I think it's a Good Thing. No-one (yet, at least) is forcing anybody to wear any of this stuff. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone on here picked one up as you've probably get all the protective equipment you think you need (which might be none).

kelsen

Kurako wrote:

The sort of campagning the AA should really be getting involved in is stopping stuff like this happening..

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/860618-text ... randmother

Keisha Wall was with her mother, a driving instructor, when she lost control of her car and mounted the pavement.

That's just stupidity. Not sure any amount of campaigning would stop that...

prj45

kelsen wrote:

Pardon my lack of cynicism, but isn't this simply a campaign with good intentions (and a bit of advertising for the AA) to keep people safe and encourage more cycling? Surely that's a good thing? Yes, you can read all sorts of stuff into it - the dubious mertis of hi-viz, making helmets compulsory, Boris bikes are dangerous, drivers/peds need to take more responsibility - but perhaps, just perhaps, it's not as negative as we all think?

No, it's the AA making sure that we've all got helmets on so its members can drive how the f***k they like and if they strike a cyclist they don't have to be dealing with a lawsuit involving a head injury, not that helmets prevent this anyway.

thelawnet

kelsen wrote:

Pardon my lack of cynicism, but isn't this simply a campaign with good intentions (and a bit of advertising for the AA) to keep people safe and encourage more cycling?

Why would the AA want more people cycling?

More likely it's a token publicity stunt to make people think riding a Boris bike is terribly dangerous and stupidly impractical, having to carry around a bulky plastic hat everywhere.

hatbeard

stupid pr stunt that conveniently reinforces the idea that it's the cyclists responsibility to make sure that drivers can see them rather than have drivers pay attention to the road in the first place.

il_principe

kelsen wrote:

Pardon my lack of cynicism, but isn't this simply a campaign with good intentions (and a bit of advertising for the AA) to keep people safe and encourage more cycling? Surely that's a good thing? Yes, you can read all sorts of stuff into it - the dubious mertis of hi-viz, making helmets compulsory, Boris bikes are dangerous, drivers/peds need to take more responsibility - but perhaps, just perhaps, it's not as negative as we all think?

Sorry but it is negative. Suggesting people need helmets to ride BoBike clearly suggests that they are dangerous, when the opposite is true. In my company of 11, 3 of us cycle, the rest don't as despite our protestations they still regard cycling in London as being dangerous. Kudos to the AA for reinforcing this. F8cktards.

Pufftmw

So I'm guessing the answer is that no-one has?

jonny_trousers

Ha! I love you grumpy, old bastards. Who knows what the AAs motive is, but does that really mean the result has to be a negative? Do you think Barklays motive for supporting the Boris Bike scheme was wholly altruistic?

If you are a BB user and you want a free helmet then wehay, you've got one. If you don't then no one's forcing you to take one.

prj45

The big question for me is this

Ninety seven per cent of AA members think cyclists should wear helmets

Why?

il_principe

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Ha! I love you grumpy, old bastards. Who knows what the AAs motive is, but does that really mean the result has to be a negative? Do you think Barklays motive for supporting the Boris Bike scheme was wholly altruistic?

If you are a BB user and you want a free helmet then wehay, you've got one. If you don't then no one's forcing you to take one.

Problem is that the coverage is everywhere, and the message is negative.

notsoblue

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Ha! I love you grumpy, old bastards. Who knows what the AAs motive is, but does that really mean the result has to be a negative? Do you think Barklays motive for supporting the Boris Bike scheme was wholly altruistic?

If you are a BB user and you want a free helmet then wehay, you've got one. If you don't then no one's forcing you to take one.

Well the result *is* negative. For me its not the fact that its a PR stunt, its that its a PR stunt at the expense of reinforcing the perception that cycling is dangerous.

Paul E

prj45 wrote:

The big question for me is this

Ninety seven per cent of AA members think cyclists should wear helmets

Why?

Because 97% of aa members think they are going to hit a cyclist at some point?

snooks

prj45 wrote:

The big question for me is this

Ninety seven per cent of AA members think cyclists should wear helmets

Why?

+1

WTF has it got to do with AA members anyway?

100% of people sitting behind this computer think more drivers should read the highway code, overtake only when it's safe, and leave a sensible distance when they do overtake.

I like the idea of CTC handing out highway codes to drivers...Touché

tgotb

I don't particularly care what AA members think. However I don't wear my helmet on the Brompton because it's normally too minging. Having a second (non-smelly) helmet will be quite handy, and I'm really not that bothered what colour it is; I'm off to pick one up at lunchtime...

thelawnet

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Ha! I love you grumpy, old bastards. Who knows what the AAs motive is, but does that really mean the result has to be a negative? Do you think Barklays motive for supporting the Boris Bike scheme was wholly altruistic?

If you are a BB user and you want a free helmet then wehay, you've got one. If you don't then no one's forcing you to take one.

By sponsoring BBs Barclays get lots and lots of advertising everywhere.

The AA are handing out 5,000 helmets, might sound like a lot but there are tens of thousands of journeys per day, lots of tourists using it, the purpose is clearly to undermine the idea of a casual hire scheme by implying you need to carry around bulky equipment in order to make use of it. "spot checks suggest fewer than five percent of scheme users wear helmets"

As noted, the only reason anyone might consider wearing a helmet on a boris bike is to protect them from (potential) AA members, so perhaps the AA would consider sponsoring some decent off-road paths instead.

tgotb

thelawnet wrote:

the purpose is clearly to undermine the idea of a casual hire scheme by implying you need to carry around bulky equipment in order to make use of it. "spot checks suggest fewer than five percent of scheme users wear helmets"

As Jonny said, who knows what their real purpose is? I rather doubt it's to "undermine the idea of a casual hire scheme"... My guess is that they're doing it for the publicity, much like many freebie giveaways and any other advertising.

thelawnet wrote:

As noted, the only reason anyone might consider wearing a helmet on a boris bike is to protect them from (potential) AA members

I can think of lots of other reasons people might consider wearing a helmet on a Boris Bike. Who knows what their motives are? One reason I wear a helmet, for instance, is so that I don't appear a hypocrite when I tell my kids to wear theirs.

I think the conspiracy theorists on this forum are reading a lot into a perfectly harmless publicity stunt. Yes, the AA have their vested interests (much like LCC, CTC or almost any other organisation) but I don't believe they're being evil...

meanredspider

Anybody thought that the reason why the AA want to encourage the use of Boris Bikes might be so that the roads are less congested with cars?

No-one can bloody win with some of you. You want more bikes on the road and when someone does something to encourage more bikes on the road you pan them for it because it doesn't fit with your own pet theories about helmet/hi-viz wearing.

One of the big questions everyone was asking about the BB scheme at its inception was about lids. Now someones chucked some free lids out there it's a problem.

The people who were going to ride without lids were riding without them - no bother. Those that decided they wouldn't ride a BB because they didn't have a lid now have the chance to get one - no bother.

Do you honestly think that people are going to perceive cycling as any more dangerous because of this? Everybody sees cyclists wearing lids every day - this isn't something new. And if 97% of AA members (just general members of the public who have breakdown cover - probably the ideal target audience for cycling - private car owners) already think wearing a lid is a good idea, you only risk swaying the remaining 3% - hardly a crisis.

Jeez - worry about something more important for once.

notsoblue

meanredspider wrote:

No-one can bloody win with some of you. You want more bikes on the road and when someone does something to encourage more bikes on the road you pan them for it because it doesn't fit with your own pet theories about helmet/hi-viz wearing.

Well the whole point is that it doesn't encourage more bikes on the road. The insinuation is that you *need* a helmet before you can get on a bike. There are thousands of people that use the Barclays Cycle Hire bikes because they're convenient and fast, and you don't need to have special equipment to ride it. This PR campaign by the AA entirely goes against this image of safe convenience.

Dudu

kelsen wrote:

Pardon my lack of cynicism, but isn't this simply a campaign with good intentions (and a bit of advertising for the AA) to keep people safe and encourage more cycling? Surely that's a good thing? Yes, you can read all sorts of stuff into it - the dubious mertis of hi-viz, making helmets compulsory, Boris bikes are dangerous, drivers/peds need to take more responsibility - but perhaps, just perhaps, it's not as negative as we all think?

No, it's a campaign to make cycling appear dangerous and to assuage the guilt of killer drivers.