Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

"Riding to work offers loads of benefits for a small risk so do do it."

Lamest pick up line, ever!

#shitafixieskidderwouldneversay

The strapline is:

[quote]
The London 2012 champion spoke out on rider behaviour using the strongest terms yet in her role as the chief ambassador for the Mayor, who has expressed concern that cycling’s image is being tarnished by an aggressive, Lycra-clad minority.

but Laura never actually mentioned the word "Lycra". Or the word "aggressive". That's dishonest reporting.[/QUOTE]

No it isn't. It's honest reporting, but you haven't read it properly:

The London 2012 champion spoke out on rider behaviour using the strongest terms yet in her role as the chief ambassador for **the Mayor, who has expressed concern **that cycling’s image is being tarnished by an aggressive, Lycra-clad minority.

The sentence clearly attributes the paraphrased opinion to

the Mayor

and not to

The London 2012 champion

Wear helmet, or not?
Making own choice scarier
When some disagree

Common sense is far too subjective to be sensible and far uncommon to be common.

Well, that's just common sense...

Nice.

I don't wear a road helmet by the way, I ride with a BMX-style one.

?

Know what The Sun's headline was after Laura Trott's load of old bum gravy?

Olympian: ‘Cyclists causing crashes’

DOUBLE Olympic bike champ Laura Trott has blamed rogue cyclists for causing road accidents.

Cheers Laura.

Know what The Sun's headline was after Laura Trott's load of old bum gravy?

Cheers Laura.

Nice to see News Corp's papers are in line with their pro-cycling message.

The Sun...*

*Loses train of thought and pukes on cock

Better call the nurse.

I am sorry but common sense is a damn good starting point IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO OVER-RULE COMMON SENSE. FFS is it really unreasonable of me to say that common sense says a bike helmet is better than a paper bag in a crash therefore I will choose the helmet until such time as the evidence tells me my common sense is wrong?

So your common sense tells you you should wear a helmet, my common sense say I shouldn't. Whose common sense is right and why?

Yours, because my common sense says so.

Posting in this thread common sense is not exactly the foremost thought that springs to mind...

Is it more realistic to say to people 'wear a helmet if you are going to ride fast' or 'leave 20 minutes earlier for work every day and ride at half your normal speed'.

Well, half speed is a misunderstanding on your part, it's more like 2/3 speed. But I get what you are asking and my answer is the latter, exactly as I would advise any driver who claimed he "had" to drive fast to get to work. If your "normal" speed is dangerous it should not be your normal speed. (And if it's not dangerous you don't need a helmet, do you?)

I don't think saying "wear a helmet if you are going to ride too fast" is good advice, because the person choosing to ride fast is also increasing risks which as you have already acknowledged a helmet doesn't help with. To imply a cyclist can increase their speed beyond their safety zone, slam on a helmet and have no net increase in risk is just wrong.

So I didn't say I wear a helmet if I want to ride fast. I don't want to ride fast in London. I wear a helmet on an unfamiliar bike with aggressive (faster) geometry because I think the combination of unfamiliar bike, poorer visibility, handlebar-mounted brakes and compromised handling at low speeds makes me more likely to fall. Not more likely to be hit - I don't think a helmet is going to help there - but to fall due to a misjudgment.

I think helmets have their place in sports and racing where people push themselves and ride right at the top end of their ability and accidents are less likely to involve a motor vehicle. I think anyone riding right at the top of their ability just for transport is (a) a fool, and (b) exposed to risks for the majority of which a helmet adds no protection at all.

In this tragic story here, a driver gets 18 months jail for hitting and killing a cyclist because she wasn't looking at the road but adjusting her satnav.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408785/Cyclist-death-Mother-jailed-18-months-killing-bike-rider-attempted-adjust-sat-nav-driving-50mph.html

In the comments on the normally caustic website there is much sympathy for the cyclist, with anti-cycling comments being heavily voted down.

Could part of that reason be because the cyclist is pictured wearing a helmet, thus making him a "responsible" cyclist, even though a helmet didn't do him any good in this situation? He is reported to have died from head and chest injuries.

The perception being, rightly or wrongly, that he took at least some responsibility for his health and safety by wearing a helmet. And that those who don't are obviously more reckless.

I'm not saying this is a reason to wear a helmet, of course not. I'm just wondering if he would have received as much sympathy from readers if the picture had shown him on his bike without a helmet. Btw, the story doesn't say if he was wearing a helmet at the time of the collision. But the picture implies he likely would have been.

Whose to know without the same happening with a picture of someone without a helmet.
The Daily Mail site is not the best place for clear open minded thinking so even the same story could get a different response if those immigrants has been winding up the readers.

Might Laura Trott be well-meaning but thick? Athletic gifts and intellectual ones rarely correlate.

And add to the mix a youth spent in the gym and on the track rather than in the classroom and you have your answer.

No one would pay heed to a 21 year old footballer's views on safe driving.

Hahaha... One can only imagine.

It is a reason not to wear a helmet.

"It is a reason to wear a helmet. Not a very good one, and a mightily depressing one, but it is a reason."

This thread just gets better and better... Now the perception of Daily Fail readers is seen a reason to wear a helmet, not a very good one apparently, but still. Are you insane?

Anyway I'm housebound and bored. Guess I could shot my neighbour to liven things up... Not a very good reason to kill him really, and a mightily depressing one, but it is a reason. Don't worry, I'll wear a helmet and maybe they will let me go; winning the jury over is all about perception.

"...I stand by my assertion that ignorance is one of the biggest issues, but not wearing a helmet is potentially against your own interests in the face of ignorance, and does not in itself add to knowledge / people being informed."

I have no idea what this means, but it sounds like complete bollocks to me.

"We live in a world where 'justice; is administered by the police, the courts and (to some extent) the press and the public.

The police, the courts, the press and the public are ignorant.

In the real world, full of ignorance, to maximise your chances of getting justice then wear a helmet. I quite understand you saying 'fuck that' - no problem at all. But it is a reason to wear one, albeit a reason you are welcome to set aside as a matter of principle.

Its a bit like the witch-hunts of hundreds of years ago. People were fucking stupid to take the black cat and a wart as evidence that some poor woman was a witch... but that doesn't mean that hiding your wart and not having a black cat isn't a fucking good idea to avoid being burnt at the stake."

I hear what you're saying, you're talking bollocks, but I hear you.

So, Jeez, you're now advocating the discrimination of cats based on the colour of their fur? [/won'tsomebodythinkofthekittens]

I'm pretty sure if I use the road in a beautifully constructive and brilliantly safe manner whilst not wearing a helmet I can help ignorant people see that helmets do not equal good road user.