Some safety tips from Boardman

Anonymous

I have been to Utrecht quite a few times and have never once wished I had my bike with me.

morstar

mpatts wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Some folk being a little pedantic here.

You can't be a little pedantic.

That's brilliant!

bendertherobot

I'm, frankly, overwhelmed that the society that is normally, at best, irritated by my use of the same roads as them, is so caring as to worry about whether I wear a helmet.

It's a wonderful testament to human nature that, in cycling debates, the normally vociferous hordes, change into cuddly care bears when testifying as to how much they want to protect me.

I mean, that's it right, those are the reasons that the lobby want me to wear one? Isn't it? I mean, it's not just one more (poorly thought out) thing to beat us with, it can't be that, can it?

keezx

You hit the hammer on the head......
I have thought about this thing a lot as I 'm an older cyclist (62 now), sometimes admitting in (Dutch) fora that occasionally I do a ride wthout helmet, maybe 3 or 4 times a year.
Call it youth-sentiment or whatever you like, when I ride without I feel young again...., 35 years ago you were considered "weird" when training with helmet.
So when I admit this all kinds of forumtigers want do call me an irresponsible idiot who's head ist not worth protecting anyway....
In one forum I was banned because my remarks about these forumtigers were too sharp for the moderaters, i stood on their sensible toes.
The real , underlaying reason for this is that lots of people cannot distinguise themselves by expierience, cycling skills, technical skills or whatever and they practise moral supriority over me by helmet statements.
Even the cycle noobs who proudly tell that they made a 30 km ride at 27 km/h average in the second week they have ever ridden a racing bike do have the need to tell me that I should always wear a helmet.

simon_masterson

Like Chris, I'd rather there be more people riding bikes. If you are reading this, you owe him. Without him, road cycling in Britain would not be what it is today. But he has a point regardless.

What we're talking about is 'pedestrians on wheels'. If you are riding around at 5-10mph max on the way to the shops/work/etc, I really don't see why you need a helmet any more than if you were walking (or running). The only way that large scale cycling infrastructure can be built is getting bums on saddles. A lot of people don't understand what a cycle helmet actually does, and/or overestimate the level of protection that it provides - and if that is preventing them from riding a bike when it is inconvenient to carry a helmet around, I for one think that's a shame.

Enough casual cyclists don't wear their helmets properly, so it's not going to do anything if they do come a cropper anyway.

dai_t75

An article written by CB is now on BBC as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29848778

The comments on there make me despair. Unless you put infrastructure in place to be away from traffic all of the time then at some point you have to share the roads with these morons. You would have thought I would have learned not to read comments on cycling articles... somehow thought a BBC article might be a bit better.

morstar

Carbonator wrote:

I have been to Utrecht quite a few times and have never once wished I had my bike with me.

But you have a very prescriptive view of cycling. The benelux version doesn't fit your view so this doesn't really mean much.

ugo.santalucia

Simon Masterson wrote:

What we're talking about is 'pedestrians on wheels'. If you are riding around at 5-10mph max on the way to the shops/work/etc, I really don't see why you need a helmet any more than if you were walking (or running).

That's very true. I have on occasions hired Boris bikes and never had or felt the need for a helmet. It's a completely different proposition... much slower, much harder to go down with 2 inch tyres, much easier to put a foot down if you need to, without clips and silly shoes with cleats.

jgsi

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

What we're talking about is 'pedestrians on wheels'. If you are riding around at 5-10mph max on the way to the shops/work/etc, I really don't see why you need a helmet any more than if you were walking (or running).

That's very true. I have on occasions hired Boris bikes and never had or felt the need for a helmet. It's a completely different proposition... much slower, much harder to go down with 2 inch tyres, much easier to put a foot down if you need to, without clips and silly shoes with cleats.

Like in Crewe mate as well... I'd say 90% of all cyclists here are 'blokes on their way to work' in blokes I include pavement riding chavs of all nations tab in mouth , mobile on ear, ladies on their way to Asda,schoolkids also on the pavement in groups of 10... what the hell do they need to get up garbed like one Mr Moss' H&S acolytes?
Some on here seem to live in a very ordered hi viz world, one step away from soup dribbling - if that offends anyone, sorry... (no not really, life is shit sometimes in our pampered western society with the illusion of self determination)

Buckie2k5

Simon Masterson wrote:

What we're talking about is 'pedestrians on wheels'. If you are riding around at 5-10mph max on the way to the shops/work/etc, I really don't see why you need a helmet any more than if you were walking (or running).

Pedestrians dont walk in the middle of the road though. A car hitting you at 20/30mph regardless of your speed is going to hurt.

popularname

I'm struggling to see how someone exercising free choice is somehow 'fake'....

Anyway, back to reality:

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campai ... reakfast-0

Very good article by CB.

Sadly, I think it is the people on bikes who RLJ and go down streets the wrong way that create more problems and antagonise motorists and other road users - not people who don't wear helmets. I *think* the only people who argue vociferously about whether you should wear a helmet or not are cyclists.

Why is it that people who wear helmets get so angry with people who don't - yet we all let RLJers off?

And why do people who RLJ and go down streets the wrong way have no sense that they are doing something wrong and that it turns many people against cyclists? The street I live in in Edinburgh is one where people constantly cycle the wrong way down a one way system mainly for no advantage. Last time I spoke to someone about it - while on a bike myself - he told me he was doing no harm to anyone. I tried to point out that he was wrong. He didn't see it at all.

bobmcstuff

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29878233

And another BBC article about how cycling is actually quite safe... Surprise, surprise (not).

bendertherobot

popularname wrote:

Very good article by CB.

Sadly, I think it is the people on bikes who RLJ and go down streets the wrong way that create more problems and antagonise motorists and other road users - not people who don't wear helmets. I *think* the only people who argue vociferously about whether you should wear a helmet or not are cyclists.

Why is it that people who wear helmets get so angry with people who don't - yet we all let RLJers off?

And why do people who RLJ and go down streets the wrong way have no sense that they are doing something wrong and that it turns many people against cyclists? The street I live in in Edinburgh is one where people constantly cycle the wrong way down a one way system mainly for no advantage. Last time I spoke to someone about it - while on a bike myself - he told me he was doing no harm to anyone. I tried to point out that he was wrong. He didn't see it at all.

The main issue is bracketing. Helmet use is one of the things motorists use to bracket cyclists. It falls into the unsafe category, along with failure to wear high vis. As I alluded to above, whilst the bracketing might be, on the face of it, to do with safety, it is, in reality rule breaking. The fact that helmets and high vis are not required is lost on motorists. And, even if they realise the same, we must be protected from them. Big mother, or something.

Then you have dangerous bracketing, i.e. RLJ'ing. Here motorists see A cyclist do something and that, by projection, is a thing all cyclists do.

You can well imagine the seething rage that a motorist must feel when he comes across a helmet wearing, high vis cyclist who stops for a red light. Well, there's road tax, I guess.....................

It's this bracketing that is so unfair. It simply doesn't happen in reverse (white van, BMW stereotypes aside). Mobile phone using car drivers are never bracketed as car drivers. They are, singular, twats on phones. The way I should be treated on the road should be simply dealt with on the basis of how squishy I am and not how others behave. Even if I misbehave that squishiness should still dictate how a motorist might respond to me.

I used to subscribe to the fact that RLJ'ing cyclists "give us a bad name." I don't, anymore. Because they don't. They don't speak for me. Their actions don't define me.

ugo.santalucia

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, there's road tax, I guess.....................

That is a funny one, as I've never heard of anyone having a go at a Prius (or other low emission car) owner for not paying road tax. Sometimes ignorance is staggering... :?

bendertherobot

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, there's road tax, I guess.....................

That is a funny one, as I've never heard of anyone having a go at a Prius (or other low emission car) owner for not paying road tax. Sometimes ignorance is staggering... :?

Ignorance pervades the entire debate. It's the tax disc, one must conclude, which is important, rather than the payment.

Now that we are all free of the disc one must equally conclude, that the argument will fall away.

It won't.

Anonymous

I think some red lights should be give way to cyclists.
Isn't it safer for the cyclist to clear the junction and better that the driver negotiates passing with clear view of the cyclist.

Drivers often just use RLJ as a way to moan at cyclists because they are anti cyclists.

Of course you get bad cyclists, but guess IMO its mainly drivers that need to be educated and legally forced to comply if they drive in a country in which they share the road with cyclists.

Drivers may have the annoyance of watching someone go through a red light that they have to stop at, but they probably take comfort that if they kill him/her whilst being twice the legal drink/drive limit, whilst doing twice the speed limit, they will probably only be locked up for a little over a year.

popularname

I used to subscribe to the fact that RLJ'ing cyclists "give us a bad name." I don't, anymore. Because they don't. They don't speak for me. Their actions don't define me.

Um - but that's inconsistent with your point about bracketing.

BUT - your point about bracketing with regard to helmet wearing is well made. The only problem is that you seem to be saying that the REAL challenge is simply… anyone on a bike.

Which in my mind takes us back to behaviour, courtesy and respect on the one hand - and taking responsibility for one's own safety on the other. By, for example not RLJing or going down one way streets the wrong way….

bendertherobot

popularname wrote:

I used to subscribe to the fact that RLJ'ing cyclists "give us a bad name." I don't, anymore. Because they don't. They don't speak for me. Their actions don't define me.

Um - but that's inconsistent with your point about bracketing.

BUT - your point about bracketing with regard to helmet wearing is well made. The only problem is that you seem to be saying that the REAL challenge is simply… anyone on a bike.

Which in my mind takes us back to behaviour, courtesy and respect on the one hand - and taking responsibility for one's own safety on the other. By, for example not RLJing or going down one way streets the wrong way….

How is it inconsistent with my "bracketing is unfair" narrative? My post, I should say, was in no way a criticism of yours. It seemed easiest to make the point I wanted by using yours.

debeli

These threads often seem to descend into a concatenation of gently-swung handbag assaults from five paces. With that, the real subject is lost in the yelping.

I think we all tend to categorise by appearance, often against our better judgement. One reads of 'ignorant' motorists writing off all cyclists as RLJ-ing, non-helmet-wearing freeloaders... and in the next post we see motorists described as WVM or typical X5 drivers or a Donald-Duck Wit in an Audi... It is the same mentality mirrored.

Most of us (cyclists, motorists, pedestrians) stray away from what is legal from time to time. I am a reformed/reforming hopper of red lights. I know I shouldn't, but I do. It doesn't wind me up at all when I do it. It's other people who do it who are giving me such a bad name!

What was so refreshing about the CB piece is that it was just sound, sensible, quiet advice. No ranting, no anti-helmet preaching, no criticism of other road users, no fault-finding or blame-laying. Excellent and very welcome.

It is not a surprise that the fault-finders and blame-layers have found a home in this thread, but it is (in view of the video being discussed) slightly ironic.

arthur_scrimshaw

I've got to say I enjoy reading your posts, even if I had to look up the meaning of 'concatenation'

veronese68

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, there's road tax, I guess.....................

That is a funny one, as I've never heard of anyone having a go at a Prius (or other low emission car) owner for not paying road tax. Sometimes ignorance is staggering... :?

A colleagues wife had a rant at me about cyclists, as if they are all my responsibility, during which she claimed she paid road tax. Considering they are old car nuts and out of the 6 cars they own 5 of them are tax exempt I thought this was more than a little hypocritical. She didn't like it when I pointed it out and insisted it was different. She got rather more cross when I laughed at her.
Idiots don't care about facts when they are on a prejudice based rant.

craigus89

Buckie2k5 wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

What we're talking about is 'pedestrians on wheels'. If you are riding around at 5-10mph max on the way to the shops/work/etc, I really don't see why you need a helmet any more than if you were walking (or running).

Pedestrians dont walk in the middle of the road though. A car hitting you at 20/30mph regardless of your speed is going to hurt.

And you think that a helmet will help if you are hit by a vehicle travelling at that speed?

popularname

How is it inconsistent with my "bracketing is unfair" narrative? My post, I should say, was in no way a criticism of yours. It seemed easiest to make the point I wanted by using yours.

Oh, agreed - I didn't take it as a criticism of mine at all and really do think your point is well made. And it gave me pause to think, because I generally only wear a helmet when I'm wearing club kit.

I just don't see how any of us can excuse RLJing and going down one way streets the wrong way. IMHO, it just reinforces the view amongst drivers that all cyclists are to55ers who (a) don't care about the rules (b) are irresponsible and (c ) shouldn't therefore have a voice because they are not reasonable.

popularname

Nice post BTW Debeli.

Buckie2k5

Craigus89 wrote:

And you think that a helmet will help if you are hit by a vehicle travelling at that speed?

Yes be it when my head meets the tarmac.

chris_bass

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

I've got to say I enjoy reading your posts, even if I had to look up the meaning of 'concatenation'

It is quite a difficult word, try splitting it up and then piecing it back together.

Tjgoodhew

Bozman wrote:

Someone hit on this earlier, but is there a direct correlation between the helmet Gestapo and the number of years folk have been cycling?
People that have been cycling for 20, 30 or 40 years would have cycled for years without wearing a helmet(god knows how they survived), are these cyclists nonchalant about the helmet issue.

Def something in this - im prob a bit younger than a few on here and have been cycling for a couple of years and i wouldnt even think about not wearing a helmet.

I know the stats and the arguments for and against but i just feel more comfortable with one on. And people that i see out of a similar age to me all seem to wear one too.

Pross

Veronese68 wrote:

De Sisti wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Does anyone actually think a helmet would help if your head was squished by a car?

Yes. Not me, but many people do.

I think most of the 'popular press' seem to believe this.

Yep. The amount of articles I've read where a cyclist has been hit by a fast moving car or run over by a 40t truck and there will almost inevitably be a comment on there along the lines of 'the cyclist, who wasn't wearing a helmet' (or occassionally that they were wearing a helmet) as if that is in anyway relevant. I really cannot think of many / any other examples of where someone can be killed due to the actions of another person and is somehow deemed at least partly responsible for their demise in this way. Boardman is trying to make the point that a) we should be looking to prevent the accident occuring rather than mitigating the effects and b) we shouldn't make cycling appear to be a more dangerous activity than it actually is by making the use of safety equipment the norm.

Anonymous

Buckie2k5 wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

And you think that a helmet will help if you are hit by a vehicle travelling at that speed?

Yes be it when my head meets the tarmac.

Or even before that, the windscreen.
I would rather be wearing a helmet if I was hit by a car at 20-30mph but fine if you would prefer not to be Craigus.

Would be a shame to survive the impact and then be left brain damaged wishing you had not.

surrey_commuter

always an interesting debate as most can not see the other point of view.

I am in the why not camp when it comes to helmet wearing - ie Carbonator's position. I would always use lights at night but think others who go for 2 or 3 front and back are obsessive. I am trying to lighten down my cycling attire and do not see why others don't. This may or may not be contradictory but do not get angry about what others do (except in RP).

Back to the thread I do think that if CB is going to present himself as some sort of public safety ad then he should set an example. Also by referring to more people getting injured in the kitchen I hope he is being willfully stupid. I always love the stat that fishing is more dangerous than BASE jumping as they have more fatalities.