The Times Cycle Safety Fail...

Ghostt

Was flicking through one of the safe cycling supplements that came with the Saturday Times and noticed this. See if you can spot the obvious:



I am fully in support of their campaign by the way, anything to make cycling safer is a no brainer for any cyclist. Just can't believe no one on the paper spotted it.

schmako

Yeah, you should totally have at least one finger on both brakes at any time!

But yeah, pretty bad fail.

Gazlar

Ghostt wrote:

spot the obvious

Sounds like a proper gay game

sheepsteeth

ive heard that a helmet can cause as many injuries as they could help prevent.

cooldad

That's like my obvious.

cooldad

Gazlar wrote:

Ghostt wrote:

spot the obvious

Sounds like a proper gay game

That's probably the pony tail.

cat_with_no_tail

cooldad wrote:

Gazlar wrote:

Ghostt wrote:

spot the obvious

Sounds like a proper gay game

That's probably the pony tail.

Pony Tail?

cooldad

Cat With No Tail wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Gazlar wrote:

Ghostt wrote:

spot the obvious

Sounds like a proper gay game

That's probably the pony tail.

Pony Tail?

Repeat after me - must try harder.

mak3m

ZOMG somebody removed the bell

weight savings?

gentlegreen

lack of gloves ?

No front mudguard would tend to give you a face-full of anything nasty n the road ...

bennett_346

Maybe its meant to show someone being dangerous ie don't do what x is doing?

sheepsteeth

bennett_346 wrote:

Maybe its meant to show someone being dangerous ie don't do what x is doing?

get out.

TheNorthernTrain

She isn't wearing reflective gear... this is quite clearly a breach of health and safety rules for riding a bike.

bennett_346

sheepsteeth wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

Maybe its meant to show someone being dangerous ie don't do what x is doing?

get out.

I'm ill leave me alone

supersonic

Has V brakes and the bar isn't 3 foot wide.

Fully-sprung

Is it that it's a female biker, lots of people will be too busy noting the fact that there is a female biker and will crash.

Daz555

Perhaps they are trying to make a point that cycle safety is not just about what the cyclist can do to armour themselves should the worst happen. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to go for a ride without wearing a helmet.

cooldad

Are you a suicidal nutcase?

sheepsteeth

Daz555 wrote:

Perhaps they are trying to make a point that cycle safety is not just about what the cyclist can do to armour themselves should the worst happen. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to go for a ride without wearing a helmet.

if you have an accident on a bke whilst wearing no helmet, you can be very seriously injured.

ive heard that helmets prevent a lot of injuries.

cooldad

I believe it's a rumour spread by the American military industrial complex, Save the Whales and the Daily Mail.

I know because my skull is tougher than a bit of polystyrene.

Fully-sprung

sheepsteeth wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Perhaps they are trying to make a point that cycle safety is not just about what the cyclist can do to armour themselves should the worst happen. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to go for a ride without wearing a helmet.

if you have an accident on a bke whilst wearing no helmet, you can be very seriously injured.

ive heard that helmets prevent a lot of injuries.

And I crashed into a bridge and only had a cut finger and a scraped leg, no helmet there.

sheepsteeth

Fully-sprung wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Perhaps they are trying to make a point that cycle safety is not just about what the cyclist can do to armour themselves should the worst happen. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to go for a ride without wearing a helmet.

if you have an accident on a bke whilst wearing no helmet, you can be very seriously injured.

ive heard that helmets prevent a lot of injuries.

And I crashed into a bridge and only had a cut finger and a scraped leg, no helmet there.

you're an idiot.

cooldad

Fully-mong wrote:

I speak a load of bollocks

montevideoguy

Fully-sprung wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Perhaps they are trying to make a point that cycle safety is not just about what the cyclist can do to armour themselves should the worst happen. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to go for a ride without wearing a helmet.

if you have an accident on a bke whilst wearing no helmet, you can be very seriously injured.

ive heard that helmets prevent a lot of injuries.

And I am a helmet.

Gazlar

Fully-sprung wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Perhaps they are trying to make a point that cycle safety is not just about what the cyclist can do to armour themselves should the worst happen. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to go for a ride without wearing a helmet.

if you have an accident on a bke whilst wearing no helmet, you can be very seriously injured.

ive heard that helmets prevent a lot of injuries.

And I crashed into a bridge and only had a cut finger and a scraped leg, no helmet there.

And this is why I thing God is a cnut, this situation have him ample opportunity to solve another of the worlds little problems

wordnumb

Obviously, riding a bike that is no larger than a newspaper headline increases the chance of her being stepped on and squished. Maybe it's a very large news paper?

Daz555

sheepsteeth wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Perhaps they are trying to make a point that cycle safety is not just about what the cyclist can do to armour themselves should the worst happen. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to go for a ride without wearing a helmet.

if you have an accident on a bke whilst wearing no helmet, you can be very seriously injured.

ive heard that helmets prevent a lot of injuries.

If you have an accident on a bike whilst wearing a helmet you can also be seriously injured. It is not matter of whether a helmet will protect you should you hit something with your head - it will. My point is that there is nothing wrong at all in a human being getting on a bicycle without a helmet on. It is a perfectly rational thing to do.

Daz555

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 202104884/

sheepsteeth

Daz555 wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Perhaps they are trying to make a point that cycle safety is not just about what the cyclist can do to armour themselves should the worst happen. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to go for a ride without wearing a helmet.

if you have an accident on a bke whilst wearing no helmet, you can be very seriously injured.

ive heard that helmets prevent a lot of injuries.

If you have an accident on a bike whilst wearing a helmet you can also be seriously injured. It is not matter of whether a helmet will protect you should you hit something with your head - it will. My point is that there is nothing wrong at all in a human being getting on a bicycle without a helmet on. It is a perfectly rational thing to do.

thats a good point, i was reading that a helmet can actually cause some head and neck injuries to become more serious when worn whilst falling off a bike.

id have to think seriously about whether wearing one is worth it.

cooldad

Only pussies fall off anyway.

cat_with_no_tail

cooldad wrote:

Only pussies fall off anyway.

I agree.