Some safety tips from Boardman
Comments
-
I'm torn on this - I come from a MTB background and have got into the habit of wearing a helmet because on a MTB you tend to crash a lot, and there are often rocks or trees around to bash your head on. On the road I suspect their utility is a lot less. As has already been said they are not going to help id a truck runs over your head...
But even though i wear one on the road i do feel a bit guilty for doing so. I can't help feeling that wearing a helmet does promote the view that going for a bike ride is some kind of death defying stunt, not just what most people should be doing most days. I think it does create a barrier for people taking up cycling. They feel they need all this gear to be able to do it. When i was a kid i just jumped on my bike - no faffing and no safety gear.
The other thing that makes me feel uneasy about it is that by saying that you should wear a helmet and hi viz or you will get hit by a car enforces a victim mentality. The only other thing I can think of is the "girls shouldnt wear short skirts if they don't want to get raped.( I even saw some special nail varnish that detects date-rape drugs if you dip your finger in it....) The answer to stopping girls getting raped is to teach men that rape is a bad thing and you should never even think about it. And the answer to cyclists not getting hit by cars is to teach drivers not to do it. Not by dressing up in 76 different types of cycling safety gear!0 -
Where do you draw a line?
Helmets here, in another thread Glasses seem to be 'essential' now too. What about racing leathers? Back protectors? Neck brace, elbow, wrist, knee, hip pads, maybe even American Football shoulder pads seeing as the broken clavicle seems so popular with cyclists. Sounds silly written here, but all these items would significantly reduce risk of injury. If the pro-peloton were 'forced' to wear a protective body suit, the it wouldn't be long before the 'must have' brigade turned it into the must have for anyone riding on the road or else risk immediate death.
UCI has a great responsibility to ordinary riders. Whatever they do or make a ruling on seemingly sheep will follow, be that good, bad or indifferent. Can't wait to see the queue at bike shops across the nation when disc brakes are allowed by UCI.Big Red, Blue, Pete, Bill & Doug0 -
Some statements carry a value regardless who uttered them.
That is safer to wear a helmet while cycling is a truism of intrinsic merit, no matter who backs or disputes the statement. Both anecdotal facts and statistics make it so.
I am alive today because I wore a helmet when a drunk driver hit me from the rear. When I put on the helmet I wore during the huge crack in it lines up perfectly with the scar of 40 stitches on the side of my face. That crack would be in my skull if I had worn no helmet. My daughter had a hellish 5-years because she felt and concussed her head while riding at low speed with no helmet.
That is anecdotal evidence for others but it is harsh reality for me.
Statistics do not contradict that evidence either.
How can anyone try to advance the idea that our fragile body is safe travelling at speed and needs no protection, whether it is by argument, example, or any other means, is almost beyond comprehension.
The man acts idiotically as others have commented, and when he matures a bit more he may well be the first to admit it. In any case, by publicizing his unsafe choice, the publisher tries to pass raw sewage for information and he should be rewarded with indifference at the very least.0 -
Craigus89 wrote: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?
Wow, what a post!
Try running at 10 mph and hit ANY part of the body against a fixed hard object, to test your argument, and report back.
A helmet is no use at 20/30 mph? I was hit by a car travelling about 45 mph. The cyclist (I), soon to be pilot, traveled through the air propelled by a vehicle at that speed, I landed so hard that my helmet cracked almost in half, then I lacerated my face and scalp badly, but the helmet saved me from the first and probably lethal impact. Though not my face, my brain was intact.
Anyone claiming that a helmet has little or no use, is the intellectual equivalent of someone claiming say, that we do not need seat belts and airbags, and it is interesting why so many, relatively, people take up such argument.
Challenging establish wisdom may lead to innovation, truth, and success, but chosing the right piece of 'wisdom' to update is where the real wisdom resides. Making a 180 degree turn on cycling helmets is not likely to innovate or succeed much, I tell you.0 -
CB must have a headache after reading all this - from rolling his eyes so much. I don't think anyone - and certainly not CB - would dispute that helmets are useful to have in an accident. He was coming from the point of view that it is better not to have the accident in the first place - ideally by changing driver attitudes.
Anyway - as you were...0 -
If there's one thing that really bugs me in the helmet debate it's the 'my helmet cracked, therefore if I hadn't been wearing it my skull would have cracked' argument. It's completely flawed - a helmet is designed to do that, it's how it slows down the deceleration rate marginally by doing so and hopefully reduces the jolting on the brain. The skull by comparison is a very hard plate of bone designed to protect the soft tissue inside from direct impact.
If we are resorting to pointless anecdotes I had a crash in a time trial about 20 years ago. Another rider went into the back of me, I was doing about 25mph and went over the bars in a somersault motion landing on my shoulder and then hitting my head (no helmet) on the concrete road surface. Ever since that day I've worn a helmet on every ride bar a couple of hill climbs (in fact I hardly ever rode without before that day either and was the first rider in my club to use a shell helmet rather than a 'hair net'). The result was a sore head with a bit of a lump / tender spot and hospital treatment for minor concussion.
Fast forward to last year and a road race crash with a pretty much identical impact at a similar speed. The result was pretty much exactly the same injuries although the concussion was marginally worse (helmet cracked through in two places).
I could point to this as 'evidence' that the helmet made no difference or potentially made things worse but the fact is that I have absolutely no idea whether either incident would have been different had I been / not been wearing a helmet. It's all just conjecture the same as 'the helmet saved my life / prevented a fractured skull'. Even scientific experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of helmets are contradictory.
Also, if you boldly proclaim that a helmet makes cycling safer is a truism then you need to be able to support it by stating why you think research suggesting that helmets make the risk of rotational brain and neck injuries are incorrect not to mention those who argue they can impair vision and can encourage vehicles to pass more closely.
For the record I wear a helmet and my gut instinct is that they play a part in reducing the severity of a head injury in a low speed crash but the way some people talk they are like a magical force field that can turn a catastrophic brain injury into a slight bump. Maybe the armed forces should be kitted out in full EPS body armour.0 -
Carbonator wrote: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.
I imagine it would be much the same if a car hit you whilst walking - the issue is the likelihood of it happening.
I don't think that cycling carries all that much risk of head injury as it is, but I find it hard to believe that riding short distances at <10mph on quiet roads/cycle lanes/cycle paths can be appreciably more risky to one's bonce than doing the trip on foot instead. Unless anyone has any really good evidence to the contrary, of course. Some towns and cities in the UK already have pretty good provision for cycling, I'm pretty sure my grandma doesn't wear a helmet to ride to the shops, and Boris bikes don't have a complementary helmet attached. Come to think of it, I would be very interested to know how many head injuries have been sustained by people using them.
People riding on good dedicated cycleways hopefully are at lower risk of being involved in collisions with motorists, and that infrastructure is built by more people cycling, so CB is right. Boris bikes are the future, not red tape.
Just to be clear, I do myself wear a helmet for almost all of my cycling. I haven't always.0 -
I cant take anymore... I'll probably get impaled by a rutting deer in Tatton park tomorrow. ...0
-
JGSI wrote:I cant take anymore... I'll probably get impaled by a rutting deer in Tatton park tomorrow. ...
If it's impaling you whilst rutting then a helmet is probably the last of your worries. :oops:My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Sleeper Cell wrote:There is no debate. The final answer was that while riding with a helmet may reduce the chances of and severity of a head injury in some circumstances, it can't protect riders in all situations from all injuries caused either by themselves or other road users. While some people quote some stats, other people quote others, each not actually proving their point but the increasing vitriol in successive posts eventually leads to the thread being locked.
Riders should wear helmets if they want to, and shouldn't if they don't want to. However, riders that choose to not wear a helmet are forever banned from trying to get sympathy for injuries received while not wearing safety equipment designed to mitigate the risk. Anybody complaining about such an injury is like a whining child that fails to see the link between their actions and the consequences.0 -
Sleeper Cell wrote:Sleeper Cell wrote:There is no debate. The final answer was that while riding with a helmet may reduce the chances of and severity of a head injury in some circumstances, it can't protect riders in all situations from all injuries caused either by themselves or other road users. While some people quote some stats, other people quote others, each not actually proving their point but the increasing vitriol in successive posts eventually leads to the thread being locked.
Riders should wear helmets if they want to, and shouldn't if they don't want to. However, riders that choose to not wear a helmet are forever banned from trying to get sympathy for injuries received while not wearing safety equipment designed to mitigate the risk. Anybody complaining about such an injury is like a whining child that fails to see the link between their actions and the consequences.
Never argue with someone who cannot use the 'quote' functionI'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
I can use the quote function, watch....SloppySchleckonds wrote:Never argue with someone who cannot use the 'quote' function
I quoted myself because I have said it before in another helmet debate. Please explain why I apparently cannot use the 'quote' function, in your superior view.SloppySchleckonds wrote:I don't understand the context of Sleeper Cell's self-quote but I feel obliged to attack him0 -
TBH forget all this helmet or hi viz boll**** lots of people need to learn it's more important to actually learn how to ride a bike first!! Maybe the odd shoulder check/life saver check whatever you want to call it might be a good idea every so often.
A bit far fetched and will never happen but I wouldn't be too upset if you had to pass some sort of road test to be allowed out. It would at least save a few people.0 -
nibby wrote:TBH forget all this helmet or hi viz boll**** lots of people need to learn it's more important to actually learn how to ride a bike first!! Maybe the odd shoulder check/life saver check whatever you want to call it might be a good idea every so often.
A bit far fetched and will never happen but I wouldn't be too upset if you had to pass some sort of road test to be allowed out. It would at least save a few people.
I am not at all in favour of mandatory testing and rider registration, but I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that many lives would be saved and plaster casts rendered unnecessary if some (a minority of) cyclists understood a little better how traffic works.
In writing this I do not want to let off the hook the many motorists and pedestrians who take their own and others' lives in their reckless hands. Plenty of motorists (who are tested and licensed) are dreadful and shouldn't be on the road. But this is a cycling forum, so I can make the point about that minority of riders who really do seem clueless.
I am not by any means a very good cyclist. I've been over my own bars often enough to know better and still I don't know any better... but I am staggered how often in towns and cities I see riders who are drawn mothlike to the nearside of buses and HGVs. I am also staggered by riders who mistake a stiff, horizontal left arm for a rearward glance. "But I signalled!" they yell at the close-passing motorist as they follow their signal by whipping across the lane without looking. We've all seen this.
One of my kids wears a helmet and the others do not, but I am pleased that they have grasped (to an extent) the way traffic works and how to ride in it. I see an understanding of the highway and its shared use as a much greater safety mechanism than a hat or a shiny vest. I still like what CB said and the way he said it.0 -
nibby wrote:TBH forget all this helmet or hi viz boll**** lots of people need to learn it's more important to actually learn how to ride a bike first!! Maybe the odd shoulder check/life saver check whatever you want to call it might be a good idea every so often.
A bit far fetched and will never happen but I wouldn't be too upset if you had to pass some sort of road test to be allowed out. It would at least save a few people.
Which is exactly the sort of thing Boardman was trying to suggest. The biggest problem with him not wearing a helmet is that everyone gets fixated on that and his (excellent) message gets lost. But to some people wearing a helmet is the ultimate safety tip for cyclists rather than avoiding an accident.0 -
It's interesting but the conclusions seem to be a bit of a leap of faith.cyd190468 wrote:
Openly acknowledges lots of variables but then makes a definite claim for the initial reduction in injuries in year 1. This despite providing no trend for injuries prior to 1990 ( which could have been a statistical outlier) and also using long term cycling growth to suggest that there was no decrease in cycling in 1991 when the law was introduced and the initial injury rate declined. Even one of the comments reports an initial 30% drop in participation when the law was introduced and this is generally accepted as fact.
Fwiw, I wear a helmet but, being somebody who analyses data for a living, I hate to see spurious interpretations of data to build ropey arguments.0 -
Pross wrote:But to some people wearing a helmet is the ultimate safety tip for cyclists rather than avoiding an accident.
To some people perhaps, but you always get some nutters.
You do of course have the press going on about it (for their own reasons) and non cyclists will also often mention it as they do not know better and also have ulterior motives sometimes, but do a lot of cyclists actually believe that?
To me the two things are completely different and I do not link them.
I try to avoid having an accident, and have a helmet on only to help if I hit my head hard should I have one.
I am constantly thinking about safety when riding, but do not feel I factor the fact I am wearing a helmet into that thought process.
I do feel visibility has an impact on whether or not I might have an accident though, and am conscious of how visible I am when accessing danger.
I do not make a point of wearing Hi Viz. I just try not to wear black or camouflage myself.
I guess with visibility you have lots of options, whereas a helmet is all or nothing.0 -
I know this is the second BBC link I've posted in this thread but this one is actually a really good read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590 "Would these 5 changes actually help cyclists?"0
-
Carbonator wrote:Pross wrote:But to some people wearing a helmet is the ultimate safety tip for cyclists rather than avoiding an accident.
To some people perhaps, but you always get some nutters.
You do of course have the press going on about it (for their own reasons) and non cyclists will also often mention it as they do not know better and also have ulterior motives sometimes, but do a lot of cyclists actually believe that?
Comments on here and from messages I've seen on Facebook discussing the issue would suggest yes. On any urban ride I will see people in helmets and hi vis happily riding down the left hand side of traffic at signal junctions or changing lane position without any shoulder check, even hi vis but no lights when riding in the dark. Never underestimate the stupidity of your fellow humans!0 -
The problem with the suggestion of mandatory training to cycle on the roads is the fact that without a viable alternative, that means a test to be able to cycle anywhere.
The reality is that I see lots of people (usually young, or timid looking types) preferring to break the law and cycle on the pavement instead of risking it on the roads.
Why not legitimise this by making all pavements dual use and requiring a test to be allowed on the roads - holders of motorcycle or car driving licences being exempt (as presumably they have already demonstrated a minimum level of understanding how traffic works). In fact you could just add Cycle as a class of vehicle shown on your licence.
Yes you might get more idiots riding too fast amongst pedestrians, but that might be a small price to pay for having safer cyclists on the roads, and quieting the motoring lobby's call for more legislated cycling.
You never know you might even encourage the pedestrian lobby to start calling for more separated cycling lanes as well.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:I know this is the second BBC link I've posted in this thread but this one is actually a really good read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590 "Would these 5 changes actually help cyclists?"
Decent article. The item on positioning is another one that stirs debate on here with many riders seeminly thinking they should keep out of the way at all times and that people who position themselves positively are in someway anti-motoring zealots intent to delay drivers. Again, I think this is often relative newcomers who still think of everything with a driver's perspective. I see a lot of people riding so close to the edge of the road I'm surprised they don't hit their pedals on the kerb.0 -
philwint wrote:The problem with the suggestion of mandatory training to cycle on the roads is the fact that without a viable alternative, that means a test to be able to cycle anywhere.
The reality is that I see lots of people (usually young, or timid looking types) preferring to break the law and cycle on the pavement instead of risking it on the roads.
Why not legitimise this by making all pavements dual use and requiring a test to be allowed on the roads - holders of motorcycle or car driving licences being exempt (as presumably they have already demonstrated a minimum level of understanding how traffic works). In fact you could just add Cycle as a class of vehicle shown on your licence.
Yes you might get more idiots riding too fast amongst pedestrians, but that might be a small price to pay for having safer cyclists on the roads, and quieting the motoring lobby's call for more legislated cycling.
You never know you might even encourage the pedestrian lobby to start calling for more separated cycling lanes as well.
The very rare instances of a cyclist causing the death of a pedestrian cause far more uproar than the death of a cyclist at the hands of a motorist so this would just lead to even more calls to ban cycling. Most footways are just 2m wide as standard and riding on them can increase the risk to cyclists as well as pedestrians as they can be knocked / take avoiding action that leads to them entering the road in the path of traffic.0 -
philwint wrote:I'm torn on this - I come from a MTB background and have got into the habit of wearing a helmet because on a MTB you tend to crash a lot, and there are often rocks or trees around to bash your head on. On the road I suspect their utility is a lot less. As has already been said they are not going to help id a truck runs over your head...
But even though i wear one on the road i do feel a bit guilty for doing so. I can't help feeling that wearing a helmet does promote the view that going for a bike ride is some kind of death defying stunt, not just what most people should be doing most days. I think it does create a barrier for people taking up cycling. They feel they need all this gear to be able to do it. When i was a kid i just jumped on my bike - no faffing and no safety gear.
The other thing that makes me feel uneasy about it is that by saying that you should wear a helmet and hi viz or you will get hit by a car enforces a victim mentality. The only other thing I can think of is the "girls shouldnt wear short skirts if they don't want to get raped.( I even saw some special nail varnish that detects date-rape drugs if you dip your finger in it....) The answer to stopping girls getting raped is to teach men that rape is a bad thing and you should never even think about it. And the answer to cyclists not getting hit by cars is to teach drivers not to do it. Not by dressing up in 76 different types of cycling safety gear!
That bit in bold is an incredible sentence.0 -
Tiglath wrote:Craigus89 wrote: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?
Wow, what a post!
Try running at 10 mph and hit ANY part of the body against a fixed hard object, to test your argument, and report back.
A helmet is no use at 20/30 mph? I was hit by a car travelling about 45 mph. The cyclist (I), soon to be pilot, traveled through the air propelled by a vehicle at that speed, I landed so hard that my helmet cracked almost in half, then I lacerated my face and scalp badly, but the helmet saved me from the first and probably lethal impact. Though not my face, my brain was intact.
Anyone claiming that a helmet has little or no use, is the intellectual equivalent of someone claiming say, that we do not need seat belts and airbags, and it is interesting why so many, relatively, people take up such argument.
Challenging establish wisdom may lead to innovation, truth, and success, but chosing the right piece of 'wisdom' to update is where the real wisdom resides. Making a 180 degree turn on cycling helmets is not likely to innovate or succeed much, I tell you.
No offense, I'm a helmet wearer myself (when on the road bike, not otherwise) but this is a typical knee-jerk response from someone who has been involved in a nasty collision.
The bit in bold, there is no possible way of knowing if this is true. You may have died from a hemmorage, or may have had a headache for a couple of hours and a mild concussion. I've never read any evidence approaching from either viewpoint that conclusively proves one way or another. I do agree though, I would rather have a helmet if I were involved in a collision like that, but I don't have a logical reason why, it just feels like I should (plus the nagging from the wife).
Back to Boardman though, it is a strange approach he is taking.
No one is denying that the best and most effective way to make cycling safer on the road is to have the driver's improve. But not wearing a helmet because it isn't the best way to make things safer would be like not wearing a seatbelt because if everyone drove at 10mph you wouldn't need one.
He might want British drivers to be more european in their attitude towards cyclists, but let's face it, that isn't going to happen anytime soon, so in the meantime, why not promote the wearing of a helmet if it makes people feel safer? Even if it is a palcebo for people, but will allow them to feel like they can ride a bike, why not?0 -
I also expect it was a very conscious choice to shift the debate away from cyclist protecting themselves and tackling root cause.joe2008 wrote:Craigus89 wrote:He might want British drivers to be more european in their attitude towards cyclists, but let's face it, that isn't going to happen anytime soon, so in the meantime, why not promote the wearing of a helmet if it makes people feel safer? Even if it is a palcebo for people, but will allow them to feel like they can ride a bike, why not?
Perhaps, because the thought of trussing themselves up in all manner of safety gear for a trundle down to the shops on push bike doesn't make 'people feel safer', it makes it seem like they are undertaking a death defying act, which in turn, stops more people from trundling down to the shops on their bike.
My commuter bike now looks like a Christmas tree as I think it can make a difference to me being a statistic but this debate in the media isn't about individual cases, it's about promoting a fundamental shift in behaviour.
Think of it as running away from lions. I don't need to out run the lion, just the other people around me.
My lights reduce my chances of being a statistic (to some degree) when compared to those with rubbish or no lights. i.e. I'm outrunning my peers in the lions scenario.
The thing that is going to make all of us significantly safer is removing or reducing the threat of the cars. Controlling the lions so to speak.0 -
morstar wrote:Think of it as running away from lions. I don't need to out run the lion, just the other people around me.
that makes no sense in this case, unless drivers are driving around until they hit someone.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:morstar wrote:Think of it as running away from lions. I don't need to out run the lion, just the other people around me.
that makes no sense in this case, unless drivers are driving around until they hit someone.
Respectfully, I disagree. I'm referring specifically to my bike being well lit. Of all the people killed / hurt at night, I am assuming the odds are at least slightly* in favour of the well lit ones get hitting less.
I'm improving the odds in my favour.
*But no, I don't have any stats to support this assumption.0 -
mfin wrote:philwint wrote:The answer to stopping girls getting raped is to teach men that rape is a bad thing and you should never even think about it. And the answer to cyclists not getting hit by cars is to teach drivers not to do it. Not by dressing up in 76 different types of cycling safety gear!
That bit in bold is an incredible sentence.
Difficult to read it without hearing Mr Mackey's voice in your head lol.
It puts the sentence after the bold text into better context though.
Men not raping because you have told them not to and UK car drivers not hitting cyclists through education are lovely ideals, but the reality is that neither of these things are going to happen, so while you wait I would suggest being visible on your bike and taking sensible precautions against being raped or mugged.
Driving a car has become far less regulated/policed over recent years IMO. People see it as a right. Common law/urban myth seems to have more influence than the highway code/law these days.
Does CB really think that is going to be turned on its head in 'Generation easyjet'?
Tougher (much) sentencing would be better than trying to prove a point by making himself (for the camera's rather than in reality)(and encouraging others to do the same) ultra vulnerable.
It may have worked for that guy in front of the tank in tiananmen square, but I do not think its the right approach here.0 -
morstar wrote:Chris Bass wrote:morstar wrote:Think of it as running away from lions. I don't need to out run the lion, just the other people around me.
that makes no sense in this case, unless drivers are driving around until they hit someone.
Respectfully, I disagree. I'm referring specifically to my bike being well lit. Of all the people killed / hurt at night, I am assuming the odds are at least slightly* in favour of the well lit ones get hitting less.
I'm improving the odds in my favour.
*But no, I don't have any stats to support this assumption.
This is wrong because there is not a quota of casualties each night. back to your lion analogy if it had already eaten an antelope earlier in the day then it would not eat any of you so the slow runners (ninja cyclists) would be alive and well0 -
Generally I agree with you here. But much as we can be pragmatic about expectations, it is still important to continually challenge the perception that it is the cyclists primary duty to protect themselves. This is what CB is doing. If you keep saying it often enough, views can gradually change.Carbonator wrote:mfin wrote:philwint wrote:The answer to stopping girls getting raped is to teach men that rape is a bad thing and you should never even think about it. And the answer to cyclists not getting hit by cars is to teach drivers not to do it. Not by dressing up in 76 different types of cycling safety gear!
That bit in bold is an incredible sentence.
It puts the sentence after the bold text into better context though lol
Men not raping because you have told them not to and UK car drivers not hitting cyclists through education are lovely ideals, but the reality is that neither of these things are going to happen, so while you wait I would suggest being visible on your bike and taking sensible precautions against being raped or mugged.
Driving a car has become far less regulated/policed over recent years IMO. People see it as a right. Common law/urban myth seems to have more influence than the highway code/law these days.
Does CB really think that is going to be turned on its head in 'Generation easyjet'?
Tougher (much) sentencing would be better than trying to prove a point by making himself (for the camera's rather than in reality)(and encouraging others to do the same) ultra vulnerable.
It may have worked for that guy in front of the tank in tiananmen square, but I do not think its the right approach here.0
