OV9

At least you have the option in the UK. Aus it's the law. Even down to a 2 year old on a microscooter.

unzippy wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:10 am At least you have the option in the UK. Aus it's the law. Even down to a 2 year old on a microscooter.

To wash your hands?

Gwaredd wrote: Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:17 pm I'm not sure either, but it's a good anecdote in a helmet debate.

And I understand it with the gear. The way I explained it to my kids when they did't want to wear a helmet was thus: You could not look & cross the road without being hit 99% of the time, but why risk it? You look as a preventative measure. Cycle helmet is no different IMO.

#snowflake

This is it though, by that rational you should wear a helmet to walk about and certainly if running as falling off your bike at 10mph is statistically likely to cause a similar acuity of injury.

Get ready, I'm about to point out the obvious: It's about risk assessment and risk appetite. I accept that if I fall off my bike cycling home from the pub, there is a statistical chance that I will bang my head and die. I accept that statistically that chance will be reduced if I'm wearing a helmet. However I choose not to mitiugate the risk, but accept it as the statistical probablity of the risk occuring is so low. i.e. my risk appetite is sufficient.

I do make my kids wear their lids, but also take them to the trails and let them launch themselves down stupid runs and off daft jumps. I'm less comfortable with that from a risk appetite perspective as statistically with all the kit on they're still likely to at least break bones and statistically the probablity of a serious injury or death are higher than if we didn't do it. Better to burn the candle brighter for shorter though right?

I did reach a level of risk appetite I wasn't completely happy with over the summer but had to stop myself snowflaking all over it. The kids are all pretty good swimmers, yet they're still fairly young at 12, 10 and 7. Plus, they obviously out-number me and Mrs Ste. We hired a boat, took it out and did some snorkeling out at sea over a wreck. I had to get over the fact that I couldn't watch all 3 of them at once and trust that when I couldn't see one of them it was because they'd dived down for a bit and would probably resurface at some point.

I think you have to do stuff that scares you though, otherwise what's the point of it all?

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming ‘Wow! What a Ride!‘“

ste wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:26 am TBF, a morning in London now looks almost similar - cars are so outnumbered and more and more people are seeing the benefits of bicycles as a way to get about.

It's quite humorous seeing those who are bicycling because transport and the 'enthusiasts'. Often funny watching the lycra louts carving through the commuters in full team kits acting like they're moving up the peloton on the Champs Elysee. Occasionally you'll see someone on a full downhill rig with a full-face helmet too. Bicycling is ace in every form, the more people are doing it to get from place to place rather than jumping in a car, the better.

Weirdly we were just talking in the office about how the last few years has seen a huge shift away from cars in London and it now far more closely resembles somewhere like the northern European cities

Stemmed froma convo about the disproprotionate transport investment though.

Jobbo wrote: Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:55 pm My particular objection to GG's comments was that no car driver has the right to behave differently towards someone because they are, or are not, wearing a helmet. The cyclist is a squashy thing and if you run him over, the helmet will do nothing to protect him (since they aren't designed to stop a 1.5 tonne car from crushing your skull).

I hadn't been paying attention to this thread (or the forum generally) for a few days but probably do need to respond to this and clarify: I wasn't in any way implying that a driver has a right to behave differently to a cyclist not wearing a helmet. You have somewhat jumped to a conclusion there based probably on the tone of what I was saying but not justified by what I actually wrote.

What my throwaway comment about helmets was directed at was merely dismay at was what seems to be an ever increasing number (probably just as a result of more cyclists on the road generally rather than really a change in behaviour, I admit) of people taking irresponsible risks, not wearing helmets, no lights and dark clothing at night, weaving in and out of moving traffic dangerously, etc. I was commenting that the cyclist that cut down the inside of a turning car and then turned across inches in front of me to move out past parked cars was also not wearing a helmet, both facts increasing the risk of him meeting a sticky end - distilled down to that it really isn't that controversial.

There's no excuse at all for drivers behaving obnoxiously around cyclists but equally no excuse for some of the risky riding that sadly you see all too often, particularly in London. The last thing cyclists need is a culture surrounding cycling that gives people the feeling that the can ride with impunity and because they're the more vulnerable road user, others have to take more care for their wellbeing than they do themselves. I'm not sure about wearing helmets makes people more reckless but I'm pretty sure building up that kind of 'responsibility free' approach to cycling does.

I may have jumped to conclusions based on your description, and I'm sure you're perfectly reasonable to cyclists - after all, you must have spent 3 years being a cyclist at university so you know what it's like cycling round a city centre.

What winds me up enormously is car drivers regularly saying that cyclists are stupid for not wearing a helmet, and using that as self-justification for their own bad driving round cyclists. Amsterdam is an amazing place to cycle around, as is Oxford to a lesser extent, for the relatively safe co-existence of car and bike. I've used too many Sustrans cycle routes which are incredibly badly laid out - almost as if they were never ridden by anyone involved - to expect the rest of the UK to be as cycle-friendly. But notwithstanding the idiocy of a few cyclists, 90% of car drivers tend to be pretty much oblivious to cyclists and that attitude needs to change. The helmet debate is not even linked to this.

Washing your hands before pissing was something I carried on for amusement only. Quite why Rich conflates the real issue of cycle safety with pissing on your hands is something I can but wonder

I just cycled home from work with my helmet dangling from my handlebars (which is more comfortable than it sounds). Am I doing it right?

Christ Dan that's some rig you must be packing

Its a big rig i'm not gonna lie.

Good on you mate

Don’t get it caught in your front wheel, Dan. That would smart.

What can I say. I’ve got a large helmet.

(Which I bought recently as it turns out my head is bigger than I thought and my old medium helmet was crushing my head)

NotoriousREV wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:38 pm Don’t get it caught in your front wheel, Dan. That would smart.

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:36 pm Good on you mate

5 feet.
10 inches.





Those are two separate measurements by the way

Hope the preputioplasty went well Dan.

I don’t know what that is and can’t be bothered to google it but thanks anyway.

Its a "limited dorsal slit with transverse closure" (apparently). HTH.

Jobbo wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:57 pmWashing your hands before pissing was something I carried on for amusement only. Quite why Rich conflates the real issue of cycle safety with pissing on your hands is something I can but wonder

Jobbo pisses on his hands. Ewwwww.

GG. wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:48 pm Its a "limited dorsal slit with transverse closure" (apparently). HTH.

So, like a fin on his penis?