Some safety tips from Boardman

Tiglath

bendertherobot wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

Proof? Why is proof necessary to believe an inductive proposition? Proofs belong to mathematics when things required rigor and exactitude. Most things in life require no proof to persuade, high likelihood suffices much of the time.

And I can tell you that if, god forbid, you end up propelled through the air by a 3000 lb car travelling at 40 mph hitting you, and you impact your head against something hard, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that you will die or suffer serious head injuries.

You seem to require absolute certainty, instead of high probability, before you are willing to believe me. All I can say is that you would do well to drop that requirement.

And no, the casualty does not have the same insight as the by-stander, because knowledge by experience is not equal to knowledge by observation. Could you 'know' what kissing was like by seeing lovers kiss, or did your knowledge on the matter lose the quotes when you actually tried it?

Out of interest, when this 3000 lb car hit you at 40 mph propelling you over such a long distance, what were your other injuries?

Dislocated shoulder, broken humerus, crushed leg, severe lacerations on legs chest and back. Two nails keep my shoulder together. I already mentioned face scarring, and cuts to the scalp. Not to mention a whole year without riding.

But 'brain injury' or 'death' are not on the list, and the SOLE reason is the helmet I was wearing.

Why that simple fact seems disputable to some, I'll never know. It's not rocket science.

Tiglath

Daz555 wrote:

Boardman knows full well that to focus all the time on helmets and high vis creates a view that cyclists are the only ones responsible for our safety. This is true at the level of the individual. However government and society need a different view..... One where cycling safety is built into the design of infrastructure and embedded into the minds of all road users.

Banging on about helmets moves the debate away from the REAL safety issues facing cyclists.

Security and safety are more effective whan approached in a layered model. No layer offers complete protection, and it's only together that the are effective.

For cyclists one layer is the social contract with other road users. That one usually sucks unless you live in one of the few countries that has honed the social contract for decades and got good results, like Holland or Austria.

Another layer is where you choose to ride and when. And yet another one is the protective gear you use and the safety devices you have like lights and bells.

I see nothing wrong in focusing or debating any of those single layers, as long as the rider is aware that he needs to pay attention to all.

Roberto di Velo

Tiglath wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

Proof? Why is proof necessary to believe an inductive proposition? Proofs belong to mathematics when things required rigor and exactitude. Most things in life require no proof to persuade, high likelihood suffices much of the time.

And I can tell you that if, god forbid, you end up propelled through the air by a 3000 lb car travelling at 40 mph hitting you, and you impact your head against something hard, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that you will die or suffer serious head injuries.

You seem to require absolute certainty, instead of high probability, before you are willing to believe me. All I can say is that you would do well to drop that requirement.

And no, the casualty does not have the same insight as the by-stander, because knowledge by experience is not equal to knowledge by observation. Could you 'know' what kissing was like by seeing lovers kiss, or did your knowledge on the matter lose the quotes when you actually tried it?

Out of interest, when this 3000 lb car hit you at 40 mph propelling you over such a long distance, what were your other injuries?

Dislocated shoulder, broken humerus, crushed leg, severe lacerations on legs chest and back. Two nails keep my shoulder together. I already mentioned face scarring, and cuts to the scalp. Not to mention a whole year without riding.

But 'brain injury' or 'death' are not on the list, and the SOLE reason is the helmet I was wearing.

Why that simple fact seems disputable to some, I'll never know. It's not rocket science.

Without wishing to be facetious, the issue of cyclist safety is a much more difficult to fully understand than rocket science. Rocket science is complicated and requires expert technical knowledge and experience. The issue of cycling safety is complex; it requires understanding of human anatomy, technical issues of materials and motion, psychology, social norms and how all of these different factors interact.

Tiglath

quote="DaveP1"]
I'd never discourage someone from wearing a helmet, but as CB said, there are just a load of other more important issues for improving cyclist safety.[/quote]

Which ones?

In safety there is what you can do and what you can get others to do, and it is rather important to realize the difference. The difference is that you can control the former but not the latter. So if you live in a place where bikers are viewed as a nuisance and things are such that getting out there on the road is always like a mouse in an elephant stampede, you have no control on the issue, and in the end, until things change if ever, all you can do is take passive measures to protect yourself and actively triying to avoid environments with bad odds.

If the head is the most vulnerable part of the body in a fall, and if falling off a bicycle is a real possibility, then the importance of wearing a helmet has to be commensurate to what you risk when you don't wear one, which is cracking you head and hurting your brain. What other important issue can possibly trump that?

veronese68

Debeli wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Of course he did it on purpose. To use an analogy of his if people were being shot regularly on our streets would we bring in mandatory bullet proof vests or would we do something to stop the shootings?

Does it have to be that convoluted and carefully constructed?

The advice was sound and the delivery managed not to be patronising, frilly or overly technical and jargon-heavy. That put it at once above most of the gubbins floating around.

That a good percentage of this thread has become a helmet debate (and that on a CYCLING forum no less) is indicative of a slightly tribal and well dug-in mortar-bomb-lobbing approach from certain elements of both sides of the 'debate'.

The piece CB did was not about helmets. He gave sound advice and gave it clearly. At some points the helmet debate has the look of a discussion on Darwin in which the deeply religiously fundamental are actively looking for something at which they can take offence. This applies to the zealots on both sides of the hat-chat.

It is just a bicycle and it is just a hat. The advice given by alleged former doper Chris Boardman was clear, sound, brief and appropriate. His apparel had nothing to do with anything unless you really, really want it to. And even then it doesn't.

I agree. His point that a helmet is not even in the top 10 things to do to improve cycle safety is being emphasised by his choice not to wear one, and it is a valid point. Unfortunately the crash helmet saved my life zealots make me a bit ranty in the other direction. Crash helmets may protect you form some harm in some cases. That's it, they are not the be all and end all. But I suspect you already know this.
I do wear a crash helmet most of the time, because as with most of the people in the same camp as me I hope that it will help if I should bang my head. But I am under no illusion that it has some sort of magic powers to prevent all head injuries.

veronese68

Tiglath wrote:

DaveP1 wrote:

I'd never discourage someone from wearing a helmet, but as CB said, there are just a load of other more important issues for improving cyclist safety.

Which ones?

These ones, there is already another thread about them here.

bendertherobot

Tiglath wrote:

Dislocated shoulder, broken humerus, crushed leg, severe lacerations on legs chest and back. Two nails keep my shoulder together. I already mentioned face scarring, and cuts to the scalp. Not to mention a whole year without riding.

But 'brain injury' or 'death' are not on the list, and the SOLE reason is the helmet I was wearing.

Why that simple fact seems disputable to some, I'll never know. It's not rocket science.

Sounds to me like your body bore the brunt. It's entirely possible your helmet broke in the minimal impact IT suffered compared to the rest of you.

Now, the above may seem fanciful. It may be. It's designed to make a point. One you don't seem to want to grasp. If you truly believe that your helmet is the SOLE reason you aren't dead or brain dead I fear you won't grasp it at all.

bendertherobot

Roberto di Velo wrote:

Why that simple fact seems disputable to some, I'll never know. It's not rocket science.
Without wishing to be facetious, the issue of cyclist safety is a much more difficult to fully understand than rocket science. Rocket science is complicated and requires expert technical knowledge and experience. The issue of cycling safety is complex; it requires understanding of human anatomy, technical issues of materials and motion, psychology, social norms and how all of these different factors interact.

Indeed, it's not even brain surgery. (See Mitchell and Webb sketch).

In fact, it's even possible to argue that rocket science, in terms of its most basic parameters, is pretty easy to understand now. It's simply about escaping the earth's gravity. Loads of research, loads of data, not an awful lot of external variables.

But modelling whether helmets work is, well, pretty much dark arts at the moment. Mostly because we don't have good data. And that may be because of the sheer amount of variables at work.

Coach H

Veronese68 wrote:

DaveP1 wrote:

When I heard about Chris Boardman appearing on a bike on the telly without a helmet, at first I thought "Oh my God, how could he get caught out like that?" but when I read what he was saying I changed to thinking "He's done this deliberately to get the helmet debate more publicity, and with it, the cycling safety debate." It is fantastic that this issue is at last getting exposure.

Of course he did it on purpose. To use an analogy of his if people were being shot regularly on our streets would we bring in mandatory bullet proof vests or would we do something to stop the shootings?

It would be hard to say he didn't do it on purpose when he was tweeting about it in the days before the video and articles were released

Tiglath

Carbonator wrote:

Pross wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

I can see that the helmet can make a difference in the sort of impact they are designed for but to somehow suggest it's a life saver when being hit by a car doing 40mph is stretching its protective powers somewhat.

No it's not. The car hits you at 40mph but that's not to say your head hits anything that fast.
In any case, surely you would prefer to be wearing one, it's always going to lessen the impact a bit and may keep your face/eyes a bit further away from the thing you hit.

I did not write that. False attribution.

Tiglath

bendertherobot wrote:

Roberto di Velo wrote:

Why that simple fact seems disputable to some, I'll never know. It's not rocket science.
Without wishing to be facetious, the issue of cyclist safety is a much more difficult to fully understand than rocket science. Rocket science is complicated and requires expert technical knowledge and experience. The issue of cycling safety is complex; it requires understanding of human anatomy, technical issues of materials and motion, psychology, social norms and how all of these different factors interact.

Indeed, it's not even brain surgery. (See Mitchell and Webb sketch).

In fact, it's even possible to argue that rocket science, in terms of its most basic parameters, is pretty easy to understand now. It's simply about escaping the earth's gravity. Loads of research, loads of data, not an awful lot of external variables.
But modelling whether helmets work is, well, pretty much dark arts at the moment. Mostly because we don't have good data. And that may be because of the sheer amount of variables at work.

Not a lot of external variables in rocket science?

Simple hilarious.

bendertherobot

Tiglath wrote:

Not a lot of external variables in rocket science?

Simple hilarious.

Not really. Designed to make a point. But, broadly, those external variables can be limited in number and are well understood. I mean, it's not brain surgery.

Tiglath

bendertherobot wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

Dislocated shoulder, broken humerus, crushed leg, severe lacerations on legs chest and back. Two nails keep my shoulder together. I already mentioned face scarring, and cuts to the scalp. Not to mention a whole year without riding.

But 'brain injury' or 'death' are not on the list, and the SOLE reason is the helmet I was wearing.

Why that simple fact seems disputable to some, I'll never know. It's not rocket science.

Sounds to me like your body bore the brunt. It's entirely possible your helmet broke in the minimal impact IT suffered compared to the rest of you.

Now, the above may seem fanciful. It may be. It's designed to make a point. One you don't seem to want to grasp. If you truly believe that your helmet is the SOLE reason you aren't dead or brain dead I fear you won't grasp it at all.

Not so fanciful. Staggering temerity, in fact, to suggest that you know more about my accident than me, by just thinking about it from where you are sitting

I understand that people enjoy being contrary on the Internet, just for fun, but denying facts and their obvious implications leads to embarrassment sooner or later.

The force of the impact made by body turn and twist and drag after it hit the ground, causing multiple injuries, but no one can deny that at some point my head hit the ground with enough force to break the helmet.

If THAT force had been applied to the skull instead, it is highly likely I would be dead, or worse.

It is no a complicated argument to understand.

Tiglath

Veronese68 wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

DaveP1 wrote:

I'd never discourage someone from wearing a helmet, but as CB said, there are just a load of other more important issues for improving cyclist safety.

Which ones?

These ones, there is already another thread about them here.

You showed that there are other issues, and that is true.

Which one, though, is more important than saving you head when the inevitable happens?

I am not saying that helmet resolves all safety issues. But if anyone is going to rank safety issues by importance, what can possibly be more important than saving your head.

bendertherobot

Tiglath wrote:

Not so fanciful. Staggering temerity, in fact, to suggest that you know more about my accident than me, by just thinking about it from where you are sitting

I understand that people enjoy being contrary on the Internet, just for fun, but denying facts and their obvious implications leads to embarrassment sooner or later.

The force of the impact made by body turn and twist and drag after it hit the ground, causing multiple injuries, but no one can deny that at some point my head hit the ground with enough force to break the helmet.

If THAT force had been applied to the skull instead, it is highly likely I would be dead, or worse.

It is no a complicated argument to understand.

It's really not temerity. Or an attempt to be contrary. In fact it's an attempt to rationalise an emotional subject.

I can't deny that your helmet had enough force applied to it to break. And that's about as much as anyone, whether present, or not, can actually say. Enough force was applied to make a helmet break.

Tiglath

bendertherobot wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

Not a lot of external variables in rocket science?

Simple hilarious.

Not really. Designed to make a point. But, broadly, those external variables can be limited in number and are well understood. I mean, it's not brain surgery.

To make a point, you need to make sense, and to say that there are not a lot of external variables in rocket science is scientific sacrilege, and to then add that they are limited in number and are well understood does not help.

We don't even know what we don't know, that is how bad it is.

You may think that because Newtonian mechanics with relativistic corrections allow us to send rockets to places, that's all there is to it. Well, think again, or even better... let's stick to bicycles.

Tiglath

bendertherobot wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

Not so fanciful. Staggering temerity, in fact, to suggest that you know more about my accident than me, by just thinking about it from where you are sitting

I understand that people enjoy being contrary on the Internet, just for fun, but denying facts and their obvious implications leads to embarrassment sooner or later.

The force of the impact made by body turn and twist and drag after it hit the ground, causing multiple injuries, but no one can deny that at some point my head hit the ground with enough force to break the helmet.

If THAT force had been applied to the skull instead, it is highly likely I would be dead, or worse.

It is no a complicated argument to understand.

It's really not temerity. Or an attempt to be contrary. In fact it's an attempt to rationalise an emotional subject.

I can't deny that your helmet had enough force applied to it to break. And that's about as much as anyone, whether present, or not, can actually say. Enough force was applied to make a helmet break.

Actually is not all one can say. We have plenty of experience on what happens to heads when they impact hard objects, we have lots of numbers on that to get bogged down with. Some areas of the skull are also more fragile than others. So it is fair and reasonable to say that the impact that cracks a quality helmet, would likely cause serious injury or death when applied to the bare head. That is a perfectly reasonable statement to make and there are no obvious rebuttals to it.

I invite skeptics to apply a single blow to their helmet with a hammer so it cracks almost in half, and then surmise what that blow would do when directed to the skeptic's head.

bendertherobot

Tiglath wrote:

I invite skeptics to apply a single blow to their helmet with a hammer so it cracks almost in half, and then surmise what that blow would do when directed to the skeptic's head.

Indeed. You could try it with a nail as well. And then with a flat spade.

Tiglath

joe2008 wrote:

We live in a culture of fear and, of course, marketeers are every ready to cash in on our fears: First steps baby helmet FFS

http://www.thudguard.com/product-info

from the TED clip.

We are physically weak animals. Don't let our intelligence fool you otherwise. Any chimp can kill an average man with ease. The world is quite full of terrors and some fear is justified. We also have a word for those who believe in inexistent fears. But none of that changes the hard truth that it does not take much of a blow to injure your head badly. That is not fear, that is having one's feet firmly on the ground and becoming aware of the human condition and predicament.

veronese68

Deleted because I really can't be bothered.

Tiglath

joe2008 wrote:

"Statistically you have a 14% greater chance of having an accident if you are wearing a helmet."

"Your risk of brain injury in an accident is higher when you are wearing a helmet."

Mikael Colville-Andersen

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/brain-surge ... le-helmets

The TED clip is well worth a watch.

Oh THAT article. Hmmmm.

I think the author must post in this forum. I see his work.

That article does not stand close scrutiny. The appearance of the word "Dr." and "university" lends it more credit that it deserves. Something you realize after careful reading... with a questioning attitude.

I am a driver too, and I hardly notice what cyclist wear on their heads. I see a cyclist and I try to give him as much room as possible, regardless.

The article contains numerous clues that tell you not to take it seriously. People should learn to spot baloney a bit better, because the Internet has brought a real epidemic of self-appointed experts peddling raw sewage and trying to pass it for information.

Let us dig in a bit...

The Bath study mentioned has more details here:
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/arc ... 10906.html

“This study shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance,” said Dr Walker, from the University’s Department of Psychology.

When did 'appearance' turn into 'helmets'?

That is the first sign of a slipshot study. Lack of clarity.

Were all those cyclist tested, the ones with helmet and the ones without, wearing the same clothes, riding the same bike, and riding on the same road, in the same traffic conditions? Who knows.

Because before you can blame a single variable in a cause-effect study you have to make all others variable equal (all-else being equal so it has no effect), so that the only explanation for variance is the variable being changed (helmet, and no helmet). I don't see that done.

Also, only a fraction of bicycle accidents are caused by cars hitting bicycles. The weight of all other kinds of accidents is left out. Some accidents happen because of rider error or mechanical failure or weather conditions.

The point is that a helmet protects from falls where you migh hit the head. No study can be significant unless all kinds of falls are in the statistical sample. To infer that helmets don't matter much because when a bus ran over you over or a car hit you into the path of another the helmet did not help is to render judgement on something with many facets by examining only one, and therefore it is erroneous and unpersuasive.

How about this in the Bath study:

"The study also found that large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, passed considerably closer when overtaking cyclists than cars."

How is that noteworthy, considering that trucks and buses are wider that most cars? Did we need a study to realize that. Actually the opposite would be noteworthy, since it would be contrary to logic and intuition and linear arithmetic.

Here is another article gem:

"some research found that cycle helmets actually cause more brain damage."

Well, I am not going to bare my head just because of 'some research' Not serious, folks. A serious article would give an accurate reference we can check and make up our own mind.

And for those still on the fence, the crown jewell...

"Marsh, for his part, declared that instead of a helmet he wears a cowboy hat"

Oh boy. The good Dr. Marsh covers himself with glory with that one.

And more importantly, such article should never be produced as evidence for anything else than to show that people who go to med school can be nuts too.

simon_masterson

Debeli wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Of course he did it on purpose. To use an analogy of his if people were being shot regularly on our streets would we bring in mandatory bullet proof vests or would we do something to stop the shootings?

Does it have to be that convoluted and carefully constructed?

The advice was sound and the delivery managed not to be patronising, frilly or overly technical and jargon-heavy. That put it at once above most of the gubbins floating around.

That a good percentage of this thread has become a helmet debate (and that on a CYCLING forum no less) is indicative of a slightly tribal and well dug-in mortar-bomb-lobbing approach from certain elements of both sides of the 'debate'.

The piece CB did was not about helmets. He gave sound advice and gave it clearly. At some points the helmet debate has the look of a discussion on Darwin in which the deeply religiously fundamental are actively looking for something at which they can take offence. This applies to the zealots on both sides of the hat-chat.

It is just a bicycle and it is just a hat. The advice given by alleged former doper Chris Boardman was clear, sound, brief and appropriate. His apparel had nothing to do with anything unless you really, really want it to. And even then it doesn't.

Source?

Tiglath

joe2008 wrote:

"Statistically you have a 14% greater chance of having an accident if you are wearing a helmet."

"Your risk of brain injury in an accident is higher when you are wearing a helmet."

Mikael Colville-Andersen

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/brain-surge ... le-helmets

The TED clip is well worth a watch.

I followed your advice and watched it. Twice.

I expected a more scholarly talk, but Mikael geared the talk more for entertainment. Scientific talks don't usually have the level of hilarity from the public this one has. But nothing wrong with humor as long as it comes with substance.

This guy, as he says, has a literary background, and he finds scientific reports rather boring to read. Well, it shows.

It would be interesting to check this guy's claims. Has anyone bothered? Or most take his word as gospel?

Unfortunately, he does not give clear references about the evidence he uses to support his claims. I did check his claim about helmet testing, though and the guy is misleading at best.

http://www.helmets.org/testing.htm
http://www.helmets.org/standard.htm#SNELL

As to his claim that the level of safety measures today is pornographic. I don't understand the purpose.

Most of the time for the species, riders (or raiders) on the hill meant sudden death. The world was full of wild beasts. Average life-span barely reached 30. Only in the few thousand years prior things have changed. Most wild beast perished in the Roman circus, and now you have to travel to the wildest places to find any. Safety in all walks of life including hospitals and factories have managed to extend logevity almost three fold, and counting.

We have it so good now apparently that it's time to go back to recklessness because wearing a helmet is pornographic. And to prove it, he shows toddlers wearing helmets - a totally irrelevant fact to cycling.

But not to the credulous masses.

It defies the imagination how this guy quantified some of the metrics he provides. He claims that cycling is 20% more beneficial than all the risks it presents. How can you even begin to quantify such a subjective thing?

If you believe that global warming is a hoax, that Bush was in the conspiracy of 9/11, and that Saddam Hussein frequently drank anissette with Bin Laden, you may well believe the crude arguments this guys presents, and that you are better off riding without a helmet.

Best of luck.

Tiglath

"Your risk of brain injury in an accident is higher when you are wearing a helmet."

Mikael Colville-Andersen

I was provided earlier on with this quote and I think it deserves its own post.

I am not a medical doctor but like other people here I was issued a 101 brain at birth.

So using our little brains, let us see if we can answer the question "Why"

What is the train of thought we can follow that will lead to discover enough premises that point to the inescapable conclusion of that statement.

Anyone?

CiB

You lot make me laugh these days, arguing the toss about 14% increased chance of this and 8-9cm more of that and doing x will reduce or increase the likelihood of y if there's a B in the month.

Boardman made the point that cycling is actually v safe and that there are plenty of other things that could improve the safety of cyclists, rather than pretending that a plastic hat solves everything from being blown into a ditch by a passing lorry to riding into an unlit skip when drunk. FWIW I agree with him, and unlike most other posters who've added to the gayety of this particular discussion I'm not going to close by saying I usually wear one anyway. Those that do claim that, are paying lip service to the argument that cycling is safe but are then hedging their bets.

Said it before but occasionally falling off various bikes in various ways over the last 40+ years with no appreciable head damage and now riding in a mainly rural setting leaves me happy to ride without. Cycling is safe in my world; it might not be for you poor saps who have to take on London traffic on a regular basis, but your view of the world differs from mine. Wear your hats with pride. My evidence is that cycling is safe and where I ride there are no kerbs to hit and not much traffic most of the time. I'll keep on coping fine without, and leave the silly stats arguments to you lot.

Tiglath

CiB wrote:

You lot make me laugh these days, arguing the toss about 14% increased chance of this and 8-9cm more of that and doing x will reduce or increase the likelihood of y if there's a B in the month.

Boardman made the point that cycling is actually v safe and that there are plenty of other things that could improve the safety of cyclists, rather than pretending that a plastic hat solves everything from being blown into a ditch by a passing lorry to riding into an unlit skip when drunk. FWIW I agree with him, and unlike most other posters who've added to the gayety of this particular discussion I'm not going to close by saying I usually wear one anyway. Those that do claim that, are paying lip service to the argument that cycling is safe but are then hedging their bets.

Said it before but occasionally falling off various bikes in various ways over the last 40+ years with no appreciable head damage and now riding in a mainly rural setting leaves me happy to ride without. Cycling is safe in my world; it might not be for you poor saps who have to take on London traffic on a regular basis, but your view of the world differs from mine. Wear your hats with pride. My evidence is that cycling is safe and where I ride there are no kerbs to hit and not much traffic most of the time. I'll keep on coping fine without, and leave the silly stats arguments to you lot.

Your head, your way. It is refreshing that you don't tell others what to do.

Damn the studies; you only need to know two things to decide.

1. There are only two kinds of bikers: the ones who will fall and the ones who have fallen and will fall again.

2. When falling from a bike the chances of hitting your head are not negligible.

That is all you need to know as a guide to action.

If you have reasons like vanity or a great sense of safety because you are special, again, your head, your way.

What is unacceptable is to proselytize not using a helmet, as some do, because the evidence that when hitting your head against hard objects is better to let the helmet take the brunt, is incontrovertible.

thegibdog

Come on people, you know the person who uses the widest vocabulary wins the argument by default. Especially if they have first hand 'evidence'. Up your games a bit.

CiB

Tiglath wrote:

1. There are only two kinds of bikers: the ones who will fall and the ones who have fallen and will fall again.

2. When falling from a bike the chances of hitting your head are not negligible.

That is all you need to know as a guide to action.

And that's where we differ. My scientific testing over 45 years of me + various peers friends & acquaintances tumbling off our bikes is the opposite. The chances of hitting the head are negligible, and the chances of hitting it hard enough to do any proper damage are even more negligible. That the safety industry has managed to convince everybody that it really isn't safe to go out on a bike without a plastic hat is credit to them, but makes us look like mugs tbh.

You carry on with your fatalism. I'm happy without. Shame that more people have your risk perception.

craigus89

Carbonator wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

DaveP1 wrote:

When I heard about Chris Boardman appearing on a bike on the telly without a helmet, at first I thought "Oh my God, how could he get caught out like that?" but when I read what he was saying I changed to thinking "He's done this deliberately to get the helmet debate more publicity, and with it, the cycling safety debate." It is fantastic that this issue is at last getting exposure.

Of course he did it on purpose. To use an analogy of his if people were being shot regularly on our streets would we bring in mandatory bullet proof vests or would we do something to stop the shootings?

Going with that analogy.
If every single person in London went out and bought bullet proof vests after the first shooting they would still do something about the perpetrator/s, and that's exactly as it should be with the fact people wear helmets and hi viz.

What CB is suggesting is for everyone to take their bullet proof vest back off before the shooter is caught.

I agree completely. But replace bullet proof vest with Polystyrene vest in your analogy and then we are getting closer.

VmanF3

Just watched BBC Breakfast story on bike safety; kid attempts right turn and stacks it into a barrier. I thought it was quite funny at first, but it just shows how easy it is to have an accident! Ok, so his bike handling skills were pretty bad, the off was not bad and I suspect that no injury was sustained.

I've given this subject a lot of consideration over the past few days because of this thread and I cannot come up with any good reason not to wear safety kit (helmet especially). I normally wear a lid if I'm off out for a 'ride', but sometimes don't bother if just a short trip to shops etc...maybe that will change.